[Merged] Recent climate observations disagreement with projections [Archive]

Reality Check

8th July 2009, 07:10 PM

Recent climate observations disagreement with projections (http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ee-20-4_7-stockwell2.pdf) (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.

TellyKNeasuss

8th July 2009, 07:16 PM

The Rahmstorf, et al., paper that Stockwell's figure is taken from is, I believe, this one:

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/%7Estefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf)

I happened to notice that the paper discussed an underestimation of the sea level rise, while Stockwell is making an issue about their temperature plot. A little "bait-and-switch" by Stockwell?

Poptech

8th July 2009, 07:27 PM

I happened to notice that the paper discussed an underestimation of the sea level rise, while Stockwell is making an issue about their temperature plot. A little "bait-and-switch" by Stockwell?
The paper discusses CO2 concentrations, Temperatures and Sea-level.

TellyKNeasuss

8th July 2009, 07:28 PM

P.S. I'm wondering why Dr. Stockwell chose to publish his critique in an energy industry propaganda journal rather than in a science journal.

Poptech

8th July 2009, 07:30 PM

It is not a propaganda journal. Though many wish it was.

TellyKNeasuss

8th July 2009, 07:38 PM

The paper discusses CO2 concentrations, Temperatures and Sea-level.

From Rahmstorf, et al.

Overall, these observational data underscore the concerns about global climate change. Previous projections, as summarized by IPCC, have not exaggerated but may in some respects even have underestimated the change, in particular for sea level.Sorry if I'm missing the part where they claimed that temperatures are increasing faster than the IPCC projection. Of course, I don't see where they expressed a preference for the "underestimation of the climate sensitivity" hypothesis in their discussion of temperature.

TellyKNeasuss

8th July 2009, 07:44 PM

It is not a propaganda journal. Though many wish it was.

The editor has admitted to pursuing a political agenda. And it isn't listed in the ISI Journal Citation Reports.

themusicteacher

8th July 2009, 07:48 PM

I spoke with an actual, honest-to-god climatologist (you know, one of them folks with all that fancy schoolin' and uppity trainin' what think they know so gol-durn much) on Monday. While we didn't get into details (I bet we'll have a chance to speak further in the future), he did say that global warming is real and that the debate is "pretty much non-existant." I assume he has never met PopTech but, should they run into one another, PT would, without question, set him straight. You go, girl...

macdoc

8th July 2009, 07:51 PM

the debate is "pretty much non-existant."

:D :thumbsup:

Poptech

8th July 2009, 07:55 PM

The editor has admitted to pursuing a political agenda. And it isn't listed in the ISI Journal Citation Reports.
The ISI is a subjective listing and owned by Reuters.

I spoke with an actual, honest-to-god climatologist (you know, one of them folks with all that fancy schoolin' and uppity trainin' what think they know so gol-durn much) on Monday. While we didn't get into details (I bet we'll have a chance to speak further in the future), he did say that global warming is real and that the debate is "pretty much non-existant."
I've done the same and the debate is real, only that when they actually debate, the alarmists lose (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9082151).

Here you can read all about it from some real climatologists:

Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf) (PDF) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)

Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know (http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=&pid=1441420) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology ; Robert C. Balling, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology)

TellyKNeasuss

8th July 2009, 08:04 PM

PopTech, are you aware that most journals, including Science, have a "letters" section and that the normal procedure if you've spotted an error in someone's paper is to submit a letter to the journal? If you actually look at journals, you will often find letters taking issue with something that was published in the journal (along with a response from the author of the original paper). Why do you think that Dr. Stockwell published his critique in a magazine that many readers of Science might not know even exists?

Poptech

8th July 2009, 08:06 PM

I suggest reading the above information as that procedure is not so easy if you are challenging predetermined science.

Reality Check

8th July 2009, 08:12 PM

P.S. I'm wondering why Dr. Stockwell chose to publish his critique in an energy industry propaganda journal rather than in a science journal.
That is a valid question though I would reword it as:
I'm wondering why Dr. Stockwell did not publish his critique in a high impact, peer reviewed scientific journal.

A possible reason is that the paper is not a really scientific paper - it contains a mixture of science and political comment. Thus it is beter suited for a mixed journal like Energy and Environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_Environment) despite the fact that it will have many fewer readers.

TellyKNeasuss

8th July 2009, 08:22 PM

That is a valid question though I would reword it as:
I'm wondering why Dr. Stockwell did not publish his critique in a high impact, peer reviewed scientific journal.

A possible reason is that the paper is not a really scientific paper - it contains a mixture of science and political comment. Thus it is beter suited for a mixed journal like Energy and Environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_Environment) despite the fact that it will have many fewer readers.

My real question is why wasn't it published as a letter in Science. The only possibilities that occur to me are that Dr. Stockwell knew that he didn't have a valid criticism or that the editor of Science didn't think that Dr. Stockwell's criticism was significant enough to merit publishing.

My take on the Rahmstorf, et al., paper, unlike PopTech's, is that the motivation was to counter claims that the IPCC has over-estimated changes. I didn't take it as making a categorical claim that the IPCC has under-estimated changes, given how many caveats about the shortness of their time series they included in the paper.

Poptech

8th July 2009, 08:25 PM

in a high impact, peer reviewed scientific journal.
Please provide the scientific procedure for determining if a scientific journal is "high impact".

bobdroege7

8th July 2009, 08:37 PM

Please provide the scientific procedure for determining if a scientific journal is "high impact".

You count the number of times articles in the journal in question are cited by other articles in other scientific journals.

Poptech

8th July 2009, 08:38 PM

And it isn't listed in the ISI Journal Citation Reports.
It is indexed in SCOPUS (Elsevier), Compendex, Environment Abstracts and Google Scholar.

Reality Check

8th July 2009, 08:39 PM

Please provide the scientific procedure for determining if a scientific journal is "high impact".
Its impact factor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor) is one.

Poptech

8th July 2009, 08:46 PM

You count the number of times articles in the journal in question are cited by other articles in other scientific journals.
What exact number does this begin at?

Reality Check

8th July 2009, 08:50 PM

What exact number does this begin at?
zero (no citations or articles).

Poptech

8th July 2009, 08:54 PM

Its impact factor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor) is one.
That is subjective criteria determined by ISI. There are other methods now thanks to the internet.

No I asked when does something become "high-impact"

Reality Check

8th July 2009, 09:12 PM

That is subjective criteria determined by ISI. There are other methods now thanks to the internet.

No I asked when does something become "high-impact"
When it has an impact factor that is higher than the average impact factor.
ETA: I personally prefer the eigenfactor (http://eigenfactor.org/) (but that does not even list Energy and Environment!).

Poptech

8th July 2009, 09:55 PM

When it has an impact factor that is higher than the average impact factor.
ETA: I personally prefer the eigenfactor (http://eigenfactor.org/) (but that does not even list Energy and Environment!).
That is because it is an ISI derived result.

TellyKNeasuss

8th July 2009, 10:14 PM

That is subjective criteria determined by ISI. There are other methods now thanks to the internet.

Why is it "subjective"? And what are these "other methods"?

No I asked when does something become "high-impact"

Something becomes "high-impact" when it is read and respected by pertinent people. And, yes, that is subjective. But you're not going to claim that Energy and Environment has anywhere near the impact of Science (which has an impact factor of 29.78), are you?

TellyKNeasuss

8th July 2009, 10:19 PM

Here you can read all about it from some real climatologists:

Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf) (PDF) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)

Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know (http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=&pid=1441420) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology ; Robert C. Balling, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology)

Why don't you summarize for us what you learned from reading these and why you think that they raise legitimate doubts about AGW. I have no interest in purchasing a book. And I'm not impressed that you can name 3 "real climatologists" who agree with you; I personally know more than 3 people who were involved in writing the 4th IPCC assessment.

Poptech

8th July 2009, 10:33 PM

Why is it "subjective"? And what are these "other methods"?
It is subjective because it is based on their ranking criteria. Other methods exist such as the ranking by author instead of journal.

Something becomes "high-impact" when it is read and respected by pertinent people. And, yes, that is subjective. But you're not going to claim that Energy and Environment has anywhere near the impact of Science (which has an impact factor of 29.78), are you?
That is nice so you can freely define "high-impact". Since E&E is not listed by ISI it does not have their subjective "impact factor" and I am certain that if it was it would not be listed higher than Science. All of which is irrelevant to this paper and it's conclusions.

First it has to be "Peer-Reviewed", then when presented with that, it is subjective value criteria and on and on.

Poptech

8th July 2009, 10:37 PM

Why don't you summarize for us what you learned from reading these and why you think that they raise legitimate doubts about AGW. I have no interest in purchasing a book. And I'm not impressed that you can name 3 "real climatologists" who agree with you; I personally know more than 3 people who were involved in writing the 4th IPCC assessment.
Summary: Global Warming Alarm-ism is not supported by the science. The first paper you can read free of charge.

I can name hundreds of scientists that support my position. As for the IPCC report you may find this interesting.

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968) (Canada Free Press)

An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”
In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”.

BenBurch

8th July 2009, 10:48 PM

Poptech lying through his teeth again?

Color me surprised.

Poptech

8th July 2009, 10:50 PM

Sorry Ben but the truth hurts.

TellyKNeasuss

8th July 2009, 10:59 PM

It is subjective because it is based on their ranking criteria.

What about their ranking criteria makes it subjective?

Other methods exist such as the ranking by author instead of journal.

Would that not be a ranking of the impact of authors rather than of journals?

What in Stockwell's paper invalidates AGW?

rjh01

8th July 2009, 11:02 PM

BenBurch

8th July 2009, 11:05 PM

rjh01 - Every dip in the data is trumpeted by the loonballs as the end of warming. They reveal no comprehension of how running averages are arrived at in the slightest.

TellyKNeasuss

8th July 2009, 11:07 PM

I can name hundreds of scientists that support my position.

Your few hundred scientists, many of whom probably don't even do climate research, represent an insignificantly small percentage of all scientists. For example, the American Geophysical Union has over 50,000 members.

By the way, do you know what an "Appeal To Authority" is?

Poptech

8th July 2009, 11:18 PM

What about their ranking criteria makes it subjective?
ISI decided on the method based on their opinions of how it should be.

Would that not be a ranking of the impact of authors rather than of journals?
Obviously, the point being that there is more then one way to rank "impact factor".

What in Stockwell's paper invalidates AGW?
It invalidates Rahmstorf's paper widely cited by alarmists.

If you ignore the last year then the trend is a steadily going up. So based on the previous 20 years of data in the graph the temperature change is going up. We can ignore the last year's data because it is still within the margin of error.
This was no agreeing with the temperature projections only showing the flaw in the dishonest smoothing method used to justify alarmism.

They reveal no comprehension of how running averages are arrived at in the slightest.
Apparently Rahmstorf does not either. I guess when the conclusions do not match what you want you just change your "smoothing method" to compensate!

Source of fishy odor confirmed: Rahmstorf did change smoothing (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/source-of-fishy-odor-confirmed-rahmstorf-did-change-smoothing/) (The Blackboard)

It must be nice to play with numbers to promote alarmist conclusions.

Poptech

8th July 2009, 11:19 PM

Your few hundred scientists, many of whom probably don't even do climate research, represent an insignificantly small percentage of all scientists.
Really I have thousands and many do climate research.

For example, the American Geophysical Union has over 50,000 members.
Yeah so? Can you show me the poll done of it's membership.

By the way, do you know what an "Appeal To Authority" is?
It is what you tried when this part of the debate started.

TellyKNeasuss

8th July 2009, 11:28 PM

ISI decided on the method based on their opinions of how it should be.

They count the number of articles and the number of times those articles are cited. Where is the subjectivity?

Obviously, the point being that there is more then one way to rank "impact factor".

Do you understand that "author" and "journal" are not synonyms?

It invalidates Rahmstorf's paper widely cited by alarmists.

RealityCheck has already explained why this isn't so. Did you understand that post?

This was no agreeing with the temperature projections only showing the flaw in the dishonest smoothing method used to justify alarmism.

Again, RealityCheck has addressed this. I'll wait for your response to his/her post.

TellyKNeasuss

8th July 2009, 11:33 PM

Really I have thousands and many do climate research.

Let me guess. You're going to post the Oregon Petition.

By the way, do you know what an "Appeal To Authority" is?
It is what you tried when this part of the debate started.

Really? In which of my posts did I claim that something is true because someone else said that it was true?

TellyKNeasuss

8th July 2009, 11:41 PM

This was no agreeing with the temperature projections only showing the flaw in the dishonest smoothing method used to justify alarmism.

Apparently Rahmstorf does not either. I guess when the conclusions do not match what you want you just change your "smoothing method" to compensate!

Can you give an example of a method of calculating a trend that isn't sensitive to the end points?

rjh01

8th July 2009, 11:49 PM

<snip>
This was no agreeing with the temperature projections only showing the flaw in the dishonest smoothing method used to justify alarmism.
<snip>

In other words BenBurch is correct when he says

rjh01 - Every dip in the data is trumpeted by the loonballs as the end of warming. They reveal no comprehension of how running averages are arrived at in the slightest.

Megalodon

9th July 2009, 01:51 AM

Poptech lying through his teeth again?

Color me surprised.

Sorry Ben but the truth hurts.

Then stop lying and your feelings will be spared...

Megalodon

9th July 2009, 02:04 AM

It's so cute to see the obstructionists ignoring the gray area in the graph.

A little background: One of the talking points of the obstructionists is that the models are worthless, this despite the very good track record of even the more primitive models from the 80's. What Rahmstorf et al. set to do was to compare the model projections compiled by the IPCC -which used data up to 1990 - with the actual data up to 2006. The model would be considered accurate if it was constrained within the gray area, the closest to the midpoint the better. If it stayed above the midpoint it would mean that the model was accurate but underestimating change, below the midpoint it would be overestimating it.

The data up to 2006 showed that the models were accurate, if a bit underestimating change, specially when it comes to sea level. This new publication in a pseudo-scientific rag created to carry anti-AGW propaganda is basically claiming that the models were overestimating temperature up to 2006 but now are closer to the midpoint. This, of course, validates the models, which was Rahmstorf's claim to begin with.

So, according to obstructionists, Rahmstorf et al. were wrong because a) they were right; and b) they couldn't see into the future, where they are still right.

UnrepentantSinner

9th July 2009, 02:24 AM

Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know (http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=&pid=1441420) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology ; Robert C. Balling, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology)Why don't you summarize for us what you learned from reading these and why you think that they raise legitimate doubts about AGW. I have no interest in purchasing a book. And I'm not impressed that you can name 3 "real climatologists" who agree with you; I personally know more than 3 people who were involved in writing the 4th IPCC assessment.

Climate of Extremes is a Cato publication, but the claims made by the authors are worthy of consideration (Michaels was a member of the IPCC). If even better than reading PT's "summary"or reviews of the book, there's an hourish presentation/Q&A at Cato that you can view free on C-SPAN's Book TV on this page (http://www.booktv.org/Program/10283/Climate+of+Extremes+Global+Warming+Science+They+Di dnt+Want+You+to+Know.aspx)

9th July 2009, 02:39 AM

why sint this stuff in Conspiracy theory?

Dancing David

9th July 2009, 04:29 AM

So, if we had the error bars on the graph, the actual data and the projected data would be within the error bars?

Hmmmm.

macdoc

9th July 2009, 04:38 AM

why sint this stuff in Conspiracy theory? :thumbsup:

Megalodon

9th July 2009, 04:44 AM

So, if we had the error bars on the graph, the actual data and the projected data would be within the error bars?

Hmmmm.

In a way, you do have the error bars in the graph. The gray area is the range of the projection. That would normally be 95% confidence, or 2 StdDev.

So the only thing proved by this piece of propaganda was that the real world data after 2006 is well within the range of the model's projection. It also does nothing to disprove the claim that the models, if anything, underestimated the rate of change during the period of 1990-2006.

Again, there's nothing there to support their cause, but they'll make the noise anyhow, because lying loud enough might just help delay the necessary measures a little while longer, and they're cashing in all that time.

macdoc

9th July 2009, 05:15 AM

Post 2006 you say ....hmmm back to back La Nina.....surely coincidence...:garfield:

Poptech

9th July 2009, 05:40 AM

why sint this stuff in Conspiracy theory?
Because this has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. It has to do with the science or lack thereof in support of global warming alarmism.

Poptech

9th July 2009, 05:57 AM

They count the number of articles and the number of times those articles are cited. Where is the subjectivity?
The method is more complicated then that.

Do you understand that "author" and "journal" are not synonyms?
I was refering to alleged impact rankings in general as being used here to discredit a scientific argument through a subjective popularity contest.

RealityCheck has already explained why this isn't so. Did you understand that post?
No he did not. None of the three reasons include an arbitrary (non-IPCC supported) smoothing method and data padding.

Again, RealityCheck has addressed this. I'll wait for your response to his/her post.
No he didn't, he is assuming it is a mistake. But based on Rahmstorf's later work it is clear he is intentionally applying arbitrary smoothing techniques and data padding to get the results that he wants.

Let me guess. You're going to post the Oregon Petition.
I have multiple sources.

Really? In which of my posts did I claim that something is true because someone else said that it was true?
You implied it...

"And I'm not impressed that you can name 3 "real climatologists" who agree with you; I personally know more than 3 people who were involved in writing the 4th IPCC assessment."

Can you give an example of a method of calculating a trend that isn't sensitive to the end points?
Rahmstorf did not even follow the IPCC (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6533) procedure. Which states:

"'...they should involve as few weighting coefficients as possible, in order to minimise end effects."

The fact is...

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 debunked.

Poptech

9th July 2009, 06:02 AM

What Rahmstorf et al. set to do was to compare the model projections compiled by the IPCC -which used data up to 1990 - with the actual data up to 2006.
No what Rahmstorf attempted to do was not only prove the models correct put promote further alarmism. All he did was prove he is trying to use mathematical tricks to get the conclusions he wants.

This has to be an EPIC embarrassment for you Megalodon, since you like to tout his paper which is nothing but an exercise in data-padding.

Ouch!

Rahmstorf did not even follow standard IPCC procedures (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6533). EPIC FAIL!

Poptech

9th July 2009, 06:17 AM

In other words BenBurch is correct when he says
If you want to actually look at the "projections" since 2001 against Rahmstorf (with IPCC approved smoothing) the observations are trending the opposite direction! Everything before 2001 is curve fitting and has nothing to do with "projections". EPIC FAIL part 2.

Megalodon

9th July 2009, 06:25 AM

No what Rahmstorf attempted to do was not only prove the models correct put promote further alarmism. All he did was prove he is trying to use mathematical tricks to get the conclusions he wants.

The word of a proven liar against the aims of an article... what to do, what to do... :rolleyes:

This has to be an EPIC embarrassment for you Megalodon, since you like to tout his paper which is nothing but an exercise in data-padding.

Hmmm... Isn't that quaint... If it is an exercise in data-padding, why is it that the "article" you quoted also has the temperature inside the range of the IPCC models?

Megalodon

9th July 2009, 06:28 AM

Poptech

9th July 2009, 06:37 AM

The original article I quoted was simply proving that Rahmstorf's "method" was flawed and thus his paper's conclusions. The recent article I linked to shows that observations are trending AWAY from the useless "projections".

The recent image I linked to has everything to do with the paper if you apply IPCC data smoothing standards, something Rahmstorf intentionally did not do so he could promote alarmist conclusions.

I realize the embarrassment is EPIC, especially since it is your fascination with a data padding artist.

The only propagandists are Rahmstorf and you.

Dancing David

9th July 2009, 07:31 AM

If you want to actually look at the "projections" since 2001 against Rahmstorf (with IPCC approved smoothing) the observations are trending the opposite direction! Everything before 2001 is curve fitting and has nothing to do with "projections". EPIC FAIL part 2.

Could you present you rationale a little better than that.

It would appear that the actual data fall within the margin of error for the model.

I notice that there are points above and below the projections.

Could you state you rationale without your polemic? I am interested to read it.

The graph moves up and down, so what are you trying to say?

Megalodon

9th July 2009, 07:32 AM

The original article I quoted was simply proving that Rahmstorf's "method" was flawed and thus his paper's conclusions.

The original pdf you quoted only managed to prove that Rahmstorf et al. cannot see into the future.

The recent article I linked to shows that observations are trending AWAY from the useless "projections".

The blog post you linked to is from stupid liars who, not surprisingly, write stupid lies in it. The model range they use is different from the one used by Rahmstorf, making it a comparison between apples and oranges. At least your first link was honest enough to use the same range, even if it destroys his whole case.

Megalodon

9th July 2009, 07:48 AM

And, of course, we have to mention that the data used on your figure is not sourced... Please note what happens if you use the NCDC temperature anomaly on the same model plot:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2814a55f48c9aef5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16917)

Now, that model plot is calibrated to which reference value of temperature anomaly? I would think the one used by GISS or NCDC, but since you brought it up, you tell us...

TellyKNeasuss

9th July 2009, 07:55 AM

The method is more complicated then that.

If you say so.

I was refering to alleged impact rankings in general as being used here to discredit a scientific argument through a subjective popularity contest.

If you say so. That still doesn't answer the question as to why this "debunking" has only been published in a politically-oriented magazine.

I have multiple sources.

Oooh, I'm impressed. Instead of listing all these millions of names, maybe you could just list the scientific societies that have taken the position that AGW has been debunked.

You implied it...

Where did I cite anything that these people said or wrote as evidence to support me?

I take it that you don't know of any method of fitting a trend that isn't sensitive to the endpoints.

D'rok

9th July 2009, 08:07 AM

Summary: Global Warming Alarm-ism is not supported by the science. The first paper you can read free of charge.

I can name hundreds of scientists that support my position. As for the IPCC report you may find this interesting.

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968) (Canada Free Press)

You attempt to poison the well of realclimate.org by claiming that it is politically biased, and then you cite this website?

Pathetic.

lomiller

9th July 2009, 08:15 AM

The blog post you linked to is from stupid liars who, not surprisingly, write stupid lies in it.

Which is of course why he can’t get published in real journals…

Megalodon

9th July 2009, 08:19 AM

Which is of course why he can’t get published in real journals…

Yeah... those mean, mean reviewers!!

Much easier writing in the interwebs, where you get to say whatever stupidity you want and even get a following of mindless drones...

macdoc

9th July 2009, 08:28 AM

and like Poptech get paid for his GoogleAds on his denier site....no agenda there...:garfield:

••

Some minor cause for celebration tho it occurred to me the authors will all be dead by the time the accounting comes due..:rolleyes:

Unlike a 2020 when someone might have to take responsibility.....

Target found in G8's climate-change fight

The G8 countries have agreed to do whatever needs to be done to limit the world's temperature to a two-degree increase. The target requires aggressive cuts to emissions that call into question what how it would affect Canada's oil industry

Leaders of the world's eight foremost industrialized economies have established an aggressive new marker in the battle against climate change: holding the global temperature to a two-degree-Celsius increase.

To get there, the leaders agreed that the world's 32 industrialized nations should slash their greenhouse-gas emissions 80 per cent by 2050, though they did not agree on the base year from which the cuts would be made
continues
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/target-found-in-g8s-climate-change-fight/article1211478/

Lotsa wiggle room tho "whatever needs to be done" is encouraging..

How about we start with lots and lots of nuclear plants....

Poptech

9th July 2009, 09:09 AM

The original pdf you quoted only managed to prove that Rahmstorf et al. cannot see into the future.
No it proved Rahmstorf's conclusions are worthless because his methods are biased as in data-padding. This is massive irony, his whole case is based on "seeing into the future". LMAO!!!!

The blog post you linked to is from stupid liars who, not surprisingly, write stupid lies in it. The model range they use is different from the one used by Rahmstorf, making it a comparison between apples and oranges. At least your first link was honest enough to use the same range, even if it destroys his whole case.
No they are not. They expose the dishonest mathematical games certain climate scientists use to push their alarmist position.

Please note what happens if you use the NCDC temperature anomaly on the same model plot
Interesting what you can do with graphic editing software.

Now, that model plot is calibrated to which reference value of temperature anomaly? I would think the one used by GISS or NCDC, but since you brought it up, you tell us...
Calibrated? You mean curve fitted? As in manually tuned. This is classic.

Rahmstorf's alarmist predictions are going down in flames. Maybe he should read up on the IPCC report.

Poptech

9th July 2009, 09:16 AM

If you say so. That still doesn't answer the question as to why this "debunking" has only been published in a politically-oriented magazine.
It is not a politically oriented magazine no matter how many times you try to smear it.

Energy and Environment is an interdisciplinary journal aimed at natural scientists, technologists and the international social science and policy communities covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use.

and Peer Reviewed.

Oooh, I'm impressed. Instead of listing all these millions of names, maybe you could just list the scientific societies that have taken the position that AGW has been debunked.
Maybe you can list the vote from the membership of those societies support AGW, instead of implying that a position statement made by a majority of a societies council membership reflects the opinion of it's members when it does not such thing.

Where did I cite anything that these people said or wrote as evidence to support me?
You mentioned them with the implication that they were "experts" otherwise you had no reason to make the comment.

I take it that you don't know of any method of fitting a trend that isn't sensitive to the endpoints.
I take it this is very embarrassing to people pushing Rahmstorf's paper since he failed to follow even the IPCC standards. Too funny.

Megalodon

9th July 2009, 09:22 AM

No it proved Rahmstorf's conclusions are worthless because his methods are biased as in data-padding. This is massive irony, his whole case is based on "seeing into the future". LMAO!!!!

No, their whole case is that a past projection agrees with past temperatures... I know you are confused, but I thought concepts like past and future were within your grasp...

No they are not. They expose the dishonest mathematical games certain climate scientists use to push their alarmist position.

So you say, but you're wrong. Again.

Interesting what you can do with graphic editing software.

:dl:

Calibrated? You mean curve fitted? As in manually tuned. This is classic.

No, my thought impaired friend... The model plot is within a temperature anomaly range. Temperature anomalies differ according to the reference period used. Different datasets use different reference periods.

As an example, if the model plot is calibrated to the GISS reference period, but your friends are using the Hadley center temperature anomaly database, the resulting graph is a clumsy lie.

So, what reference period is the model plot using? GISS, HadCRUT, NCDC?

Poptech

9th July 2009, 09:23 AM

You attempt to poison the well of realclimate.org by claiming that it is politically biased, and then you cite this website?
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.

RealClimate.org

Hosted by - Environmental Media Services (http://whois.domaintools.com/realclimate.org)

Admin Organization: Environmental Media Services

- Environmental Media Services (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupprofile.asp?grpid=6918) (EMS) (Discover the Networks)

EMS's founder and President was Arlie Schardt, who also served as the National Press Secretary for Al Gore's 1988 presidential campaign, and as Gore's Communications Director during his 2000 bid for the White House. [...]

EMS officially served as the "scientific" branch of the leftist public-relations firm Fenton Communications; both companies shared the same Washington, D.C. address and office space. For more than a decade, David Fenton (CEO of Fenton Communications) used EMS to run negative media campaigns against a wide variety of targets, including biogenetic foods, America's dairy industry, and President George W. Bush. [...]

EMS also produced many stories condemning the Bush administration's environmental policies. Among these titles were: "Bush Administration Obscures Truth About Toxic Cleanups"; "President Bush Signs Fatally Flawed Wildfire Bill"; "Earth Day Event To Highlight Bush Administration Assault On Environment, Public Health"; "Bush Administration Report Card: 'F' on Protecting Children"; and "National Environmental Groups Launch Campaign to Defeat President Bush." EMS claimed that the data contained in its press releases constituted "the latest and most credible information" provided by "top scientists, physicians, and other experts." These "experts" included officials of Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the World Wildlife Fund, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

- Environmental Media Services (http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/110) (EMS) (Activist Cash)

EMS is the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications. Based in Washington, in the same office suite as Fenton, EMS claims to be "providing journalists with the most current information on environmental issues." A more accurate assessment might be that it spoon-feeds the news media sensationalized stories, based on questionable science, and featuring activist "experts," all designed to promote and enrich David Fenton's paying clients, and build credibility for the nonprofit ones. It's a clever racket, and EMS & Fenton have been running it since 1994. [...]

It's called "black marketing," and Environmental Media Services has become the principal reason Fenton Communications is so good at it. EMS lends an air of legitimacy to what might otherwise be dismissed (and rightly so) as fear-mongering from the lunatic fringe. In addition to pre-packaged "story ideas" for the mass media, EMS provides commentaries, briefing papers, and even a stable of experts, all carefully calculated to win points for paying clients. These "experts," though, are also part of the ruse. Over 70% of them earn their paychecks from current or past Fenton clients, all of which have a financial stake in seeing to it that the scare tactics prevail. It's a clever deception perpetrated on journalists who generally don't consider do-gooder environmentalists to be capable of such blatant and duplicitous "spin."

D'rok

9th July 2009, 09:28 AM

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.

I think you missed the point of my post. It is quite obvious that it is not political bias in science that you object to, it is the "wrong" kind of political bias in science that you object to. You are quite happy to cite blatantly politically biased sources while decrying your opponents for (supposedly) doing the same.

1. Hypocritical

2. Pathetic

TellyKNeasuss

9th July 2009, 09:40 AM

It is not a politically oriented magazine no matter how many times you try to smear it.

The editor of it (Energy and Environment) said that she was pushing her political agenda.

and Peer Reviewed.

So is the Journal of 9/11 Studies (or whatever that thing is called).

Maybe you can list the vote from the membership of those societies support AGW, instead of implying that a position statement made by a majority of a societies council membership reflects the opinion of it's members when it does not such thing.

And the leadership doesn't respond to the membership? What about the American Association of Petroleumn Geologists. Didn't its membership pressure the leadership into changing the official position?

You mentioned them with the implication that they were "experts" otherwise you had no reason to make the comment.

I was just stating that there are "real climatologists" on my side as well.

I take it this is very embarrassing to people pushing Rahmstorf's paper since he failed to follow even the IPCC standards. Too funny.

Who care? Neither you nor Dr. Stockwell has shown that the IPCC projections are unrealistic.

Poptech

9th July 2009, 09:46 AM

No, their whole case is that a past projection agrees with past temperatures... I know you are confused, but I thought concepts like past and future were within your grasp...
That is called curve fitting. Which is a total JOKE.

So you say, but you're wrong. Again.
Nope, you wish they were since they massively embarrass data-padders like Rahmstorf.

So, what reference period is the model plot using? GISS, HadCRUT, NCDC?
He says what he did...

I had collated A1B model information from KNMI (a large 57-run subset of the 81 PCMDI runs) and presumably representative. I converted all models to 1961-1990 anomalies to match HadCRU and did an unsmoothed comparison of model ensemble average and observations showing 1-sigma limits as in the original.
Yes they curve fitted the model first.

technoextreme

9th July 2009, 09:51 AM

That is called curve fitting. Which is a total JOKE.

?????????????????????????????????????? Do you not ever say anything that flies in the face of every single aspect of science????????????????????????? Since when did curve fitting became a tool that scientists were forbidded to use.

Poptech

9th July 2009, 10:00 AM

The editor of it (Energy and Environment) said that she was pushing her political agenda.
All editors pursue their own political agenda whether they admit it or not. That doesn't make the journal political. Journals like Nature do the same thing by who they assign as reviewers to certain papers.

So is the Journal of 9/11 Studies (or whatever that thing is called).
Absolutely no remote relation.

And the leadership doesn't respond to the membership? What about the American Association of Petroleumn Geologists. Didn't its membership pressure the leadership into changing the official position?
Still no vote? Maybe the AAPG board members are not alarmist.

I was just stating that there are "real climatologists" on my side as well.
Well so was I.

Who care? Neither you nor Dr. Stockwell has shown that the IPCC projections are unrealistic.
Megalodon does, he kept pushing the paper now shown to be the work of data-padding. Using IPCC standards it is shown that "adjusted" observations are on the very low end of "projections" and trending in the opposite direction.

TellyKNeasuss

9th July 2009, 10:02 AM

Maybe you can list the vote from the membership of those societies support AGW, instead of implying that a position statement made by a majority of a societies council membership reflects the opinion of it's members when it does not such thing.

I can, however, cite a Harris Poll that shows that members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society overwhelmingly believe in AGW.

http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

TellyKNeasuss

9th July 2009, 10:06 AM

Still no vote? Maybe the AAPG board members are not alarmist.

Do you even know what the AAPG's official position is and what it had been?

Poptech

9th July 2009, 10:26 AM

I can, however, cite a Harris Poll that shows that members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society overwhelmingly believe in AGW.
That poll is of only 498 scientists not even remotely the membership body of either group. AGU = 50,000+ and AMS = 12,000+

59% (293) do no believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years

46% (229) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”

95% (473) do not describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science

71% (353) do not express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases.

68% (338) are not confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence.

74% (368) do not rate Al Gore’s documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth” “very reliable”.

All that despite the intense spin by your article. Hardly overwhelming.

Do you even know what the AAPG's official position is and what it had been?
Yes and? Funny of all the societies your bring up the AAPG when I did no such thing.

Anyway since you have no membership vote, claiming guilt by association is dishonest and misleading.

Twiler

9th July 2009, 10:43 AM

Poptech, do you ever have doubts about any of your evidence concerning global warmings?

BenBurch

9th July 2009, 10:53 AM

Poptech, do you ever have doubts about any of your evidence concerning global warmings?

True believers never have doubts.

Which must be nice.

I wind up having to check all this stuff out, and its a lot of work.

My remaining doubts are all about the magnitude of the problem; Is it a problem, a disaster, or worse?

I'd love to be shown that its all solar and that its going to go away, but none of the data support that presently.

BenBurch

9th July 2009, 10:59 AM

Meanwhile, in Reality;

http://pda.physorg.com/globalwarming-climatechange-ice_news166356751.html

Global warming is occurring twice as fast in the Arctic as in the rest of the world.

TellyKNeasuss

9th July 2009, 11:03 AM

That poll is of only 498 scientists not even remotely the membership body of either group. AGU = 50,000+ and AMS = 12,000+

It was a random sample. Do you have any idea what that means?

You are free to present any data that supports your contention that the boards of the scientific societies are not in agreement with the membership.

59% (293) do no believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years

46% (229) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”

95% (473) do not describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science

71% (353) do not express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases.

68% (338) are not confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence.

Yawn. 84% believe that humans are impacting the climate. I guess that you missed that part.

74% (368) do not rate Al Gore’s documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth” “very reliable”.

And this is important because?

Yes and? Funny of all the societies your bring up the AAPG when I did no such thing.

I brought up the AAPG to show that the membership can pressure the board into change the society's official stance. Sorry if that was too complicated for you too grasp.

Anyway since you have no membership vote, claiming guilt by association is dishonest and misleading.

How does one add that laughing dog to their post?

TellyKNeasuss

9th July 2009, 11:32 AM

59% (293) do no believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years

41% said "great danger", 44% said "moderate danger", 13% said "little danger"

95% (473) do not describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science

A majority (56%) answered "fully mature" or "fairly mature".

74% (368) do not rate Al Gore’s documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth” “very reliable”.

64% answered "very reliable" or "somewhat reliable"

macdoc

9th July 2009, 11:34 AM

Since when is science done by polls and opinion? :boggled:...go back to your politics section...you deserve each other...:garfield:

BenBurch

9th July 2009, 11:47 AM

Again I refer people to the seminal volume "How To Lie With Statistics" which will show what PT is attempting here for what it really is.

Poptech

9th July 2009, 04:46 PM

It was a random sample. Do you have any idea what that means?
Yes that members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society DO NOT overwhelmingly believe in AGW, a couple hundred do.

You are free to present any data that supports your contention that the boards of the scientific societies are not in agreement with the membership.
You keep failing to show any membership vote on the issue because none exists.

Yawn. 84% believe that humans are impacting the climate. I guess that you missed that part.
So? It fails to clarify to what extent.

And this is important because?
It is further evidence Al Gore is propagandist.

I brought up the AAPG to show that the membership can pressure the board into change the society's official stance. Sorry if that was too complicated for you too grasp.
Members can maintain inclusion in a scientific society for many reasons least of all has to do with support of their position statements.

I am still waiting for the membership vote. This is not complicated. Please show me the data.

Poptech

9th July 2009, 04:52 PM

Poptech, do you ever have doubts about any of your evidence concerning global warmings?
Funny Ben mentions true believers, when that is what people are who support the computer climate models, I know better. Do I have any doubts that there is no evidence for AGW (not climate change) except worthless computer climate models? Nope. Do I have any doubts that we have experienced a mild warming trend since the LIA? Of course, how mild it is remains in question. Do I have any doubts that Rahmstorf used a data padding technique? Nope. So it depends on what exactly you are asking.

Megalodon

9th July 2009, 04:57 PM

That is called curve fitting. Which is a total JOKE.

No, you are a total joke.

Nope, you wish they were since they massively embarrass data-padders like Rahmstorf.

Saying it enough times doesn't make it true...

Yes they curve fitted the model first.

They curved fitted a model ensemble, not the model ensemble used by Rahmstorf et al., thus invalidating a claim that was not made.

TellyKNeasuss

9th July 2009, 05:31 PM

t was a random sample. Do you have any idea what that means?Yes that members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society DO NOT overwhelmingly believe in AGW, a couple hundred do.

Let me see if I understand this. You're claiming that everyone who wasn't interviewed in a random survey doesn't believe in AGW???

Since you're claiming that the position of the AGU and AMS does not represent the views of the membership, why don't you present some evidence to support that.

You are free to present any data that supports your contention that the boards of the scientific societies are not in agreement with the membership.You keep failing to show any membership vote on the issue because none exists.Yes, you keep avoiding presenting any evidence to support your contention that the position of the AGU and AMS is not supported by its membership.

Yawn. 84% believe that humans are impacting the climate. I guess that you missed that part.So? It fails to clarify to what extent.This is even funnier than your first statement.

It is further evidence Al Gore is propagandist.So what if he is? Al Gore isn't a scientist, just someone who made a movie.

Members can maintain inclusion in a scientific society for many reasons least of all has to do with support of their position statements.And many members of the AAPG quit and others threatened to quit after the board came out with an anti-AGW position. The board was forced to back off and declare that the AAPG was neutral on AGW. How many members of the AGU, AMS, and all the other scientific societies have quit because of their stance on AGW? Where's your data?

I am still waiting for the membership vote. This is not complicated. Please show me the data.Show me ANY evidence that the majority, or even a significant minority, of the membership of the AGU doesn't agree with the AGU's pro-AGW stance. You're the one making the assertion.There are other surveys that also show that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe in AGW. Where's your evidence that the anti-AGW group is anything but a small minority?

TellyKNeasuss

9th July 2009, 05:33 PM

Do I have any doubts that there is no evidence for AGW (not climate change) except worthless computer climate models? Nope.

How do you explain why minimum temperatures are increasing 3 times as fast as maximum temperatures? How do explain why the largest warming has occurred in high latitudes and the least in the tropics?

BenBurch

9th July 2009, 05:53 PM

How do you explain why minimum temperatures are increasing 3 times as fast as maximum temperatures? How do explain why the largest warming has occurred in high latitudes and the least in the tropics?

And i know he'll have some choice lie to explain THIS away;

Reality Check

9th July 2009, 05:53 PM

That is called curve fitting. Which is a total JOKE.
Are you serious about this remark? What actually is the JOKE?

Fitting curves to observed data has been done for centuries. It is a serious and intensely researched area of mathematics and science.

Curve fitting just happens to be the subject of the paper you based this thread on. If it is a JOKE then the paper is a JOKE and this thread is a JOKE. Does that make you the JOKER and if so where is BATMAN :) ?

BenBurch

9th July 2009, 06:21 PM

... if so where is BATMAN :) ?

To hell with him, get me Catwoman! Mrrrrrrow!

CapelDodger

9th July 2009, 06:41 PM

CapelDodger

9th July 2009, 06:56 PM

Since you're claiming that the position of the AGU and AMS does not represent the views of the membership, why don't you present some evidence to support that.

I'd have thought they'd cause a fuss if it didn't. I would. Wouldn't you?

But for Poptech it's for everybody else to prove that they do.

Yes, you keep avoiding presenting any evidence to support your contention that the position of the AGU and AMS is not supported by its membership.

Any organisation, even a voluntary one, is potentially Stalinist. History demonstrates that. There's Poptech's evidence, served up for him.

This is even funnier than your first statement.

There's no end to it is there?

So what if he is? Al Gore isn't a scientist, just someone who made a movie.

But he's a US American, and therefore of critical importance.

And many members of the AAPG quit and others threatened to quit after the board came out with an anti-AGW position. The board was forced to back off and declare that the AAPG was neutral on AGW. How many members of the AGU, AMS, and all the other scientific societies have quit because of their stance on AGW? Where's your data?

They're too terrified to admit it. I don't think you appreciate the Stalinist nightmare that is the professional scientific world. Poptech does, which is why he avoids it so effortlessy.

Show me ANY evidence that the majority, or even a significant minority, of the membership of the AGU doesn't agree with the AGU's pro-AGW stance. You're the one making the assertion.There are other surveys that also show that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe in AGW. Where's your evidence that the anti-AGW group is anything but a small minority?

The evidence is in the lack of evidence. It's obviously being concealed by the liberal scientific press (which is Stalinist to the core).

Poptech

9th July 2009, 07:12 PM

Let me see if I understand this. You're claiming that everyone who wasn't interviewed in a random survey doesn't believe in AGW???
I am stating that you don't know their position and cannot. All you can conclude is 300 or so scientists support that position. You also failed to realize that support of this position is on a widely varying scale and the alarmist position is not even in the majority of your random survey.

Since you're claiming that the position of the AGU and AMS does not represent the views of the membership, why don't you present some evidence to support that.
I am saying that no poll or vote was done so no conclusions can be drawn as such. Why don't you present some evidence to support your implications. You are attempting to imply that they do. I asked for proof, you failed to provide it.

Show me ANY evidence that the majority, or even a significant minority, of the membership of the AGU doesn't agree with the AGU's pro-AGW stance.
Why don't you show me they do. No you are the one making the assertion that position statements by a handful of council members represents the opinion of the societies thousands of members. You have provided zero evidence for this claim. I have no idea what the position is because no vote or poll was taken. See alarmists like to pretend that the position statement = 50000 scientists support AGW when no such thing is proven. You could have a majority of 25001 scientists in support of AGW and 24999 opposed and still have a majority but that is hardly compelling. Sorry for not having your faith, I need evidence.

How do you explain why minimum temperatures are increasing 3 times as fast as maximum temperatures? How do explain why the largest warming has occurred in high latitudes and the least in the tropics?
Some of it has to do with problems in the temperature record and it is not warming in Antarctica. You seem to be suggesting evidence of regional warming and not "global warming".

CapelDodger

9th July 2009, 07:15 PM

Again I refer people to the seminal volume "How To Lie With Statistics" which will show what PT is attempting here for what it really is.

"Seminal" is the perfect word : I read it as a teenager and it has influenced my life no end. Not quite my introduction to critical thinking, but a large part of it.

Poptech isn't attempting anything, he's just repeating what works on him. There's zero chance of him realising it.

Poptech

9th July 2009, 07:19 PM

And i know he'll have some choice lie to explain THIS away;
Evidence of climate change is not evidence of AGW.

Arctic Winter Ice 1979-2006 (http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003300/a003370/SeaIceMaxWdates320x240.mpg) (Animation) (NASA)

Less Ice In Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 Years Ago (http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/) (Geological Survey of Norway)

Winds, Ice Motion Root Cause Of Decline In Sea Ice, Not Warmer Temperatures (http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=7070) (University Of Washington)

Poptech

9th July 2009, 07:21 PM

Fitting curves to observed data has been done for centuries. It is a serious and intensely researched area of mathematics and science.
You seem confused. This has nothing to do with data smoothing but adjusting a model so it matches the historical output.

CapelDodger

9th July 2009, 07:29 PM

Evidence of climate change is not evidence of AGW.

True.

Arctic Winter Ice 1979-2006 (http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003300/a003370/SeaIceMaxWdates320x240.mpg) (Animation) (NASA)

Your point?

Less Ice In Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 Years Ago (http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/) (Geological Survey of Norway)

Does it really say that? Less ice than when, and exactly where? And so what? 3-4 thousand years into this interglacial is not at all like 10-11 thousand years.

Winds, Ice Motion Root Cause Of Decline In Sea Ice, Not Warmer Temperatures (http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=7070) (University Of Washington)

Is this just coincidence in your opinion? The first time for 6-7 thousand years and it justs happens to coincide with predictions from thirty years ago?

What are the chances of that happening?

CapelDodger

9th July 2009, 07:30 PM

You seem confused. This has nothing to do with data smoothing but adjusting a model so it matches the historical output.

It would be an odd scientific model that was designed not to fit the observed facts. So what's your point?

Poptech

9th July 2009, 07:32 PM

Wait did I provide scientific evidence that does not support the alarmist belief? Of course you must question it and never question the alarmist position.

Poptech

9th July 2009, 07:33 PM

It would be an odd scientific model that was designed not to fit the observed facts. So what's your point?
Curve fitting has nothing to do with predicting anything, it is a mathematical exercise.

Reality Check

9th July 2009, 07:45 PM

You seem confused. This has nothing to do with data smoothing but adjusting a model so it matches the historical output.
You seem confused. I did not mention data smoothing.

The paper has nothing to do with "adjusting a model". It is checking the validity of the IPCC TAR within the range of the observed data by fitting a curve to the observed data and noting that the curve is within the IPCC TAR predictions years in which the data was observed.
The concusion is that curves to the observed data up to 2006 and 2008 lie within the IPCC TAR predictions and so the climate models used are valid in that date range. This suggests that the IPCC TAR predictions will be correct for future years (but their accuracy will of course decrease for longer periods).
The IPCC TAR was done several years before the paper.
The IPCC TAR was not "adjusted" as a result of the paper.

Reality Check

9th July 2009, 07:49 PM

Curve fitting has nothing to do with predicting anything, it is a mathematical exercise.
See my previous post.
Read the papers - the curve fitting uses observed data and stops at the last observed year (2006 for the first paper and 2008 for the second year). It has nothing to do with predicting anything. All the papers do is confirm the IPCC TAR predictions within the years that we have observed data.

TellyKNeasuss

9th July 2009, 07:49 PM

I am stating that you don't know their position and cannot. All you can conclude is 300 or so scientists support that position. You also failed to realize that support of this position is on a widely varying scale and the alarmist position is not even in the majority of your random survey.

And according to the polls taken before last year's presidential election, only a few thousand people were planning on voting for Obama.

I can be reasonably confident because:
1) Every relevant scientific society in the world has taken the same position;
2) As far as I know, there have not been significant numbers of resignations or protests because of the AGU's stated position;
3) There are a number of surveys of climate scientists, all of which show that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe in AGW (even the one conducted by Roger Pielke, Sr.);
4) There are many more papers published in refereed journals that support AGW than that cast doubt on AGW;
5) I have friends that work in the field, from whom I can get a sense of what the general attitude of climate scientists is;
6) I have even attended a couple of AGU conferences, each of which had over 11,000 attendees, and was able to see and hear for myself what the prevailing opinion was (I even attended a talk by Prof. Gray - though it didn't have anything to do with climate change).

I am saying that no poll or vote was done so no conclusions can be drawn as such. Why don't you present some evidence to support your implications. You are attempting to imply that they do. I asked for proof, you failed to provide it.See above.

Why don't you show me they do. No you are the one making the assertion that position statements by a handful of council members represents the opinion of the societies thousands of members. You have provided zero evidence for this claim. I have no idea what the position is because no vote or poll was taken. See alarmists like to pretend that the position statement = 50000 scientists support AGW when no such thing is proven. You could have a majority of 25001 scientists in support of AGW and 24999 opposed and still have a majority but that is hardly compelling. Sorry for not having your faith, I need evidence.You don't need evidence. You don't want evidence. You just want excuses to rationalize your beliefs.

Some of it has to do with problems in the temperature record and it is not warming in Antarctica. You seem to be suggesting evidence of regional warming and not "global warming".Whether or not it is warming in Antarctica is open to debate. It is known that the ice mass balance is decreasing. Antarctica is an anomaly because of the ozone hole, which reduces the heat emitted downward from the stratosphere, and the circumpolar vortex, which partially isolates the Antarctic atmosphere from the rest of the world.

As for the temperature record, no one has shown that there are any systematic biases in it.

Poptech

9th July 2009, 07:59 PM

The paper has nothing to do with "adjusting a model".
I know this, you are not following the discussion and don't get it. I was talking about curve fitting in reference to "calibrating" models. I am not talking about data smoothing. This was a separate discussion Megalondon and I were having of which you jumped in not understanding the context.

CapelDodger

9th July 2009, 08:06 PM

Curve fitting has nothing to do with predicting anything, it is a mathematical exercise.

Accurate prediction has nothing to do with curve-fitting. Curve-fitting alone precludes accurate prediction. Which is the error you and yours have fallen into by making such an icon of the last decade, when the warming rate has slowed. Which was quite predictable. Not for this decade specifically, but for a decade or so.

So what are you going to say when warming picks up again? When the recent past no longer fits your desires? The scientific models will have no problem with that - it's only to be expected. But your sources are going to be stretched for an explanation when their own curve-fitting methodology no longer comes up with the goods.

CapelDodger

9th July 2009, 08:14 PM

See my previous post.
Read the papers - the curve fitting uses observed data and stops at the last observed year (2006 for the first paper and 2008 for the second year). It has nothing to do with predicting anything. All the papers do is confirm the IPCC TAR predictions within the years that we have observed data.

I have actually seen denialist comments that climate models are wrong because they failed to predict the coming cooling phase. The one that hasn't happened yet (and isn't going to).

Reality Check

9th July 2009, 08:21 PM

I know this, you are not following the discussion and don't get it. I was talking about curve fitting in reference to "calibrating" models. I am not talking about data smoothing. This was a separate discussion Megalondon and I were having of which you jumped in not understanding the context.
Looking back I can see it was a mistake on your part. You pasted the same reply to both of us.
I was just talking about your "That is called curve fitting. Which is a total JOKE." remark.

So lets return to that single remark and see if we make any progress:
Are you serious about this remark? What actually is the JOKE?

Fitting curves to observed data has been done for centuries. It is a serious and intensely researched area of mathematics and science.

Curve fitting just happens to be the subject of the paper you based this thread on. If it is a JOKE then the paper is a JOKE and this thread is a JOKE. Does that make you the JOKER and if so where is BATMAN :) ?

Poptech

9th July 2009, 09:46 PM

Accurate prediction has nothing to do with curve-fitting.
Which is why the computer climate models are useless for prediction and always will be.

The scientific models will have no problem with that - it's only to be expected. But your sources are going to be stretched for an explanation when their own curve-fitting methodology no longer comes up with the goods.
Of course the models have no problem with anything, they can be changed to fit whatever "reality" you want since they are virtual AKA "not real".

My sources are showing the mathematical manipulations certain scientists are using to justify alarmism.

Poptech

9th July 2009, 10:14 PM

Looking back I can see it was a mistake on your part. You pasted the same reply to both of us.
No it wasn't and I did no such thing.

I was just talking about your "That is called..
Which was NOT made to you.

So lets return to that single remark and see if we make any progress: Are you serious about this remark? What actually is the JOKE?
Model tuning is a joke.

Reality Check

9th July 2009, 10:27 PM

No it wasn't and I did no such thing.

Which was NOT made to you.

Model tuning is a joke.
You are right. If you want a to be pivate then talk via PM. This is a forum - anyone is free to ask you questions about your statements.

Where does "Model tuning" appear in your remark?

I was just talking about your "That is called curve fitting. Which is a total JOKE." remark.

So lets return to that single remark and see if we make any progress:
Are you serious about this remark? What actually is the JOKE?

Fitting curves to observed data has been done for centuries. It is a serious and intensely researched area of mathematics and science.

Curve fitting just happens to be the subject of the paper you based this thread on. If it is a JOKE then the paper is a JOKE and this thread is a JOKE. Does that make you the JOKER and if so where is BATMAN :) ?

Megalodon

9th July 2009, 10:48 PM

This was a separate discussion Megalondon and I were having of which you jumped in not understanding the context.

You are wrong, we are not having a discussion. You are spreading lies and disinformation and I'm laughing at you.

Completely different thing...

Megalodon

9th July 2009, 10:55 PM

I have actually seen denialist comments that climate models are wrong because they failed to predict the coming cooling phase. The one that hasn't happened yet (and isn't going to).

Maybe they'll shut up after the next El Niño...

:D Who am I kidding! These guys will be claiming the warming stopped well after Tamino's bet is settled and won.

Fortunately the world leaders seem to be getting up to speed on the science, although my optimism is cautious. Again, the next El Niño will probably make everyone revise their deadlines...

Poptech

9th July 2009, 10:56 PM

Where does "Model tuning" appear in your remark?
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.

Poptech

9th July 2009, 10:59 PM

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.

Megalodon

9th July 2009, 11:17 PM

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.

Reality Check

9th July 2009, 11:24 PM

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.

Reality Check

9th July 2009, 11:32 PM

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

Shows that using the Rahmstorf et. al. methodology with 2008 data produces a better fit to the IPCC TAR predictions!
Points out that people are incorrectly using the Rahmstorf paper to raise false alarms about a rapid increase in warming.

Megalodon

9th July 2009, 11:34 PM

What Poptech still has not realized is the that E&E paper does not discredit the Rahmstorf paper. It does 2 things

Shows that using the Rahmstorf et. al. methodology with 2008 data produces a better fit to the IPCC TAR predictions!
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.

Poptech

9th July 2009, 11:37 PM

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.

Megalodon

9th July 2009, 11:38 PM

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.

:dl:

Poptech

9th July 2009, 11:42 PM

What Poptech still has not realized is the that E&E paper does not discredit the Rahmstorf paper. It does 2 things

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.

Megalodon

9th July 2009, 11:44 PM

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

:dl:

My sides hurt... :D

Poptech

10th July 2009, 01:05 AM

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.

Megalodon

10th July 2009, 01:07 AM

Nice graph... where did you steal it from?

Poptech

10th July 2009, 01:13 AM

Rahmstorf sent it to me and said that the economy was A-ok once he smoothed it out.

Megalodon

10th July 2009, 01:14 AM

Rahmstorf sent it to me and said that the economy was A-ok once he smoothed it out.

So you are a thief and a liar... nice to know.

Poptech

10th July 2009, 01:17 AM

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!

UnrepentantSinner

10th July 2009, 01:25 AM

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=activistcash) 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:

Megalodon

10th July 2009, 01:32 AM

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!

I did look at it... That's how I know you stole it from someone else.

Reality Check

10th July 2009, 01:46 AM

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:
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.
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 (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf) (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 !)

BenBurch

10th July 2009, 02:58 AM

Rahmstorf sent it to me and said that the economy was A-ok once he smoothed it out.

So, when I write him, will he confirm this? Because if not, what you said is a hell of a lot like libel, and I expect he may want to pursue that line of attack.

BenBurch

10th July 2009, 03:03 AM

Maybe some retractions and apologies are in order Poptech;

That graph did not come from Rahmstorf.

It came from Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit.org;

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6519

1. I would like you to credit the source.

2. I would like you to retract your libel against Rahmstoff

3. I would like you to apologize to them and us for this lie.

Poptech

10th July 2009, 04:24 AM

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.

Megalodon

10th July 2009, 04:30 AM

The second paper...

It's not a paper, it's a blog post...

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

Well, I could try to explain to you what peer-review means, but it's wasted time.

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

No, what you said was a lie about your theft of intellectual property. You are a liar and a thief.

UnrepentantSinner

10th July 2009, 04:54 AM

Wikipedia... Irony indeed!

Which disputes the fact that Discover the Networks and Activistcash have political/economic agendas themselves how exactly?

Twiler

10th July 2009, 04:58 AM

Wikipedia... Irony indeed!

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.

Poptech are you here to:

1. Convince anyone.

or

2. Attempt mockery.

Poptech

10th July 2009, 05:32 AM

It's not a paper, it's a blog post...
Paper #1 = Rahmstorf 2007, Paper #2 = Stockwell 2009.

Well, I could try to explain to you what peer-review means, but it's wasted time.
Oh I know what it means.

Peer Review and Scientific Consensus (http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2007/09/peer_review_and_scientific_con.html) (Nature, Peer-to-Peer)

No, what you said was a lie about your theft of intellectual property. You are a liar and a thief.
Go look up sarcasm in the dictionary.

Which disputes...
It disputes the accuracy of any of the information posted. Don't worry people are being made aware of the political connections of RealClimate.org. I realize how massively embarrassing this is for the alarmists as that is were they get all their material. Oh and Rahmstorf is an editor there. Yes the one who just got exposed here as a data-padder.

Poptech are you here to:

1. Convince anyone.
Of course but the true believers can never be convinced.

Environmentalism as Religion (http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html) (Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard)

Environmentalism Is the New Religion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idYdVQ6nwfA) (Video) (5min) (Ian R. Plimer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences)

Even when one of their cherished papers is exposed as nothing but an exercise in data-padding they remain non-skeptical. Because AGW skepticism is "denial" and they do not want to be ridiculed by other true believers.

UnrepentantSinner

10th July 2009, 05:35 AM

Which disputes the fact that Discover the Networks and Activistcash have political/economic agendas themselves how exactly?It disputes the accuracy of any of the information posted. Don't worry people are being made aware of the political connections of RealClimate.org.

Please address what I actually wrote rather than your Rohrsachesque interpretation of it.

Dancing David

10th July 2009, 05:41 AM

Wait did I provide scientific evidence that does not support the alarmist belief? Of course you must question it and never question the alarmist position.

This is also just a specious argument in the extreme. I for one did approach it with a rather high level of scepticism. Yes the Norway geology shows that there was open water at times in the artic, however the source of the dating is not really given, nor is the time period needed to form such a beach. There are some rather large temperature cycles in the period after the ice age.

Now what is your point?

How does this refute the position of AGW?

That is where you fail to appreciate the Jref , you don't follow up with the actual arguement, you throw out factoids and fail to follow through.

There are many sources that possibly indicate that global temperatures are rising. Let us discuss the Norway study.

What do you think it shows? How does the researcher reach the conclusion on the extent of artic melting. What level of ice cover does it suggest? For how long a period?

Dancing David

10th July 2009, 05:42 AM

You seem confused. This has nothing to do with data smoothing but adjusting a model so it matches the historical output.

And without your political hyperbole try to demonstrate that is what they did?

technoextreme

10th July 2009, 05:43 AM

Environmentalism as Religion (http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html) (Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard)

Environmentalism Is the New Religion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idYdVQ6nwfA) (Video) (5min) (Ian R. Plimer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences)

Even when one of their cherished papers is exposed as nothing but an exercise in data-padding they remain non-skeptical. Because AGW skepticism is "denial" and they do not want to be ridiculed by other true believers.
Didn't I correct this idiotic notion in the thread where you whine about getting banned? I just like arguing with idiots. It makes me feel smart.

Dancing David

10th July 2009, 05:45 AM

Dancing David

10th July 2009, 05:49 AM

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.

Um, there are a number of points that RC made that you have failed to address, this short hand form of argumentation makes you look weak. This is the JREF, you will be expected to make protracted and detailed responses to different critiques on sperate points.

You still have yet to do more than assert your conclusions.

Poptech

10th July 2009, 05:51 AM

Please address what I actually wrote rather than your Rohrsachesque interpretation of it.
I don't believe anything on Wikipedia because again I know better. It helps if you understand your sources.

I for one did approach it with a rather high level of scepticism. Yes the Norway geology shows that there was open water at times in the artic, however the source of the dating is not really given, nor is the time period needed to form such a beach. There are some rather large temperature cycles in the period after the ice age.

Now what is your point?
There is scientific evidence that the Arctic has had less sea-ice in the recent past. Since we only have satellite records since the late 1970s (a known cold period) we lack the observational evidence to use to conclude the causation of the recent sea ice extent. However I did provide another study showing that changes in wind patterns can be to blame for it. BTW I started a thread about the Norway study.

How does this refute the position of AGW?
Who said it did? That was in response for the evidence of less ice in the Arctic. Nothing but computer models supports AGW.

What you should be asking is why all the offtopic interjections are being done on a thread about a single paper, Rahmstorf 2007.

Dancing David

10th July 2009, 05:51 AM

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!

Thin ice indeed.

Cite your source, show the chain of evidence.

Megalodon

10th July 2009, 05:54 AM

He can't. He's a liar and a thief... the fact that he's dumb as bricks doesn't help, also...

Poptech

10th July 2009, 05:55 AM

Thin ice indeed.

Cite your source, show the chain of evidence.
Look up sarcasm. Mega does not know how to use a dictionary. (hint: they provide them for free online)

Poptech

10th July 2009, 05:56 AM

He can't...
You continue to prove how embarrassing this is for you as you used to hold up the data-padder as evidence of your alarmism. Now you will need a new false idol.

Megalodon

10th July 2009, 05:57 AM

I don't call you a liar because of your "sarcasm"... That's why I call you a thief. You've lied enough times before to earn the epithet...

Dancing David

10th July 2009, 05:57 AM

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

There is scientific evidence that the Arctic has had less sea-ice in the recent past. Since we only have satellite records since the late 1970s (a known cold period) we lack the observational evidence to use to conclude the causation of the recent sea ice extent. However I did provide another study showing that changes in wind patterns can be to blame for it. BTW I started a thread about the Norway study.

Duh, and you did not stay around to discuss this, nope you went around starting a lot of new threads and did not come back to the Norway thread.

Why was that?

At the JREF, there will be protracted discussion. You do not learnt critical skills through volume of new threads.

Who said it did? That was in response for the evidence of less ice in the Arctic. Nothing but computer models supports AGW.

See I disagree, I began to change my thinking when I looked at the lake sediment data research, many places over many extended periods show a rather stable situation that appears to be changing. then there are other sources as well.

It could be solar in nature, which could be good and bad but it also appears to coincide with the increase in CO2.

What you should be asking is why all the offtopic interjections are being done on a thread about a single paper, Rahmstorf 2007.

You brought it up, you were the one who was off topic.

And yes there are times there has been less sea ice. But again just throwing out factoid does not an argument make.

Dancing David

10th July 2009, 06:01 AM

Look up sarcasm. Mega does not know how to use a dictionary. (hint: they provide them for free online)

So, someone asks you to show the chain of evidence that the chart you posted in related to what you say it is. And this is your response?

...mutter...just like the Bigfoot people...mutter...won't answer a direct request...mutter...changes the topic...mutter... ;)

Show that the chart you posted comes from where you haven't said it comes from?

Demonstrate that you took the chart from Rahmstorff?

is that clear enough?

Megalodon

10th July 2009, 06:01 AM

You continue to prove how embarrassing this is for you as you used to hold up the data-padder as evidence of your alarmism. Now you will need a new false idol.

The fact that you are incapable to understand that the E&E "paper" actually confirms Rahmstorf et al. is your problem, not ours... Many of us explained it to you, time and time again.

Dancing David

10th July 2009, 06:03 AM

Paper #1 = Rahmstorf 2007, Paper #2 = Stockwell 2009.

try to show that is true, are you saying you actually took the chart from Stockwell?

Or what are you saying here?

...

Of course but the true believers can never be convinced.

Environmentalism as Religion (http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html) (Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard)

Environmentalism Is the New Religion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idYdVQ6nwfA) (Video) (5min) (Ian R. Plimer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences)

Even when one of their cherished papers is exposed as nothing but an exercise in data-padding they remain non-skeptical. Because AGW skepticism is "denial" and they do not want to be ridiculed by other true believers.

And here you are going way off topic!

Megalodon

10th July 2009, 06:04 AM

It could be solar in nature, which could be good and bad but it also appears to coincide with the increase in CO2.

Actually no, it can't be solar.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_28149aba360024b2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15472)

But it's nice to bring some science back into the thread :)

Poptech

10th July 2009, 06:04 AM

I don't call you a liar because of your "sarcasm"... That's why I call you a thief. You've lied enough times before to earn the epithet...
I have never lied or stole anything, though your desperate attempts to slander me continue.

Duh, and you did not stay around to discuss this, nope you went around starting a lot of new threads and did not come back to the Norway thread.
That was because it was locked and then cut to pieces. After which it lost all semblance of what was going on. I cannot have my responses butchered and expect to continue.

At the JREF, there will be protracted discussion. You do not learnt critical skills through volume of new threads.
No there will be extensive ad hominem attacks and attempts at ridicule and then slander. Anything in a pathetic attempt to discredit the poster who challenges the religious beliefs of some here.

You brought it up, you were the one who was off topic.
Really? Prove I was the first one to mention the Arctic in this thread.

And yes there are times there has been less sea ice. But again just throwing out factoid does not an argument make.
Do you even read these threads or just my comments? Why do you not state this to anyone else? Interesting the blatant bias.

Poptech

10th July 2009, 06:06 AM

So, someone asks you to show the chain of evidence that the chart you posted in related to what you say it is. And this is your response?

Show that the chart you posted comes from where you haven't said it comes from?

Demonstrate that you took the chart from Rahmstorff?

is that clear enough?
Are you serious? DO YOU NOT KNOW WHAT SARCASM IS? What is clear is I am dealing with people who cannot comprehend simple things.

Megalodon

10th July 2009, 06:08 AM

Are you serious? DO YOU NOT KNOW WHAT SARCASM IS? What is clear is I am dealing with people who cannot comprehend simple things.

No, it's you who doesn't know what intellectual property is, using graphs without attribution over and over again. You're a thief.

Poptech

10th July 2009, 06:13 AM

Actually no, it can't be solar.

But it's nice to bring some science back into the thread :)
Actually it can.

Megalodon

10th July 2009, 06:15 AM

Actually it can.

Did you make that graph (he asked knowingly)?

Where's the attribution?

Why do keep stealing things?

BenBurch

10th July 2009, 06:21 AM

In any case the data in his stolen, unattributed graph is a load of bollocks.

Poptech

10th July 2009, 07:04 AM

Why do keep stealing things?
Why do you? I have stolen nothing. (Though your fear of people seeing them is now showing)

Megalodon

10th July 2009, 07:11 AM

Why do you? I have stolen nothing. (Though your fear of people seeing them is now showing)

The graphs I post are my own or attributed. Yours are neither. You are a thief of other people's work.

Megalodon

10th July 2009, 07:17 AM

(Though your fear of people seeing them is now showing)

Please show where I told you to delete or hide the graphs, you liar.

I told you to attribute the work to the authors, and stop stealing their work.

Poptech

10th July 2009, 07:17 AM

unattributed graph is a load of bollocks.
Nope it is Peer Reviewed...

Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years (http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Soon05-SolarArcticTempGRLfinal.pdf) (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L16712, 2005)
- Willie H. Soon

Solar Arctic-Mediated Climate Variation on Multidecadal to Centennial Timescales: Empirical Evidence, Mechanistic Explanation, and Testable Consequences (http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/SunClimate09-d/Soon09-June4-PGEO_30n02_144-184-Soon.pdf) (PDF)
(Physical Geography, Volume 30, Number 2, March-April 2009)
- Willie H. Soon

:jaw-dropp

BenBurch

10th July 2009, 07:25 AM

"Physical Geography" is a place to peer review a climatology result?

:dl:

You might as well submit it to a paleontology journal.

Poptech

10th July 2009, 07:31 AM

Thats it? That is all you have? Pathetic. I hate having these Peer-Reviewed papers and watching you desperately trying to invent new excuses.

BenBurch

10th July 2009, 07:33 AM

I was going to ask you that same question. You think two papers published in off-topic journals proves... What, exactly? What do you think you just proved? Can you state it?

In your own words for once?

Poptech

10th July 2009, 07:42 AM

BenBurch

10th July 2009, 07:45 AM

Not pretend, know.

Now, back to the topic. Did you read those papers?

What do you think they say?

D'rok

10th July 2009, 07:59 AM

You can pretend that you can subjectively decide which journals are acceptable whenever you want but thanks to reality you have no such power.

I just provided peer reviewed evidence for the arctic temperature changes being linked to solar activity.

Evidence from a researcher funded by the American Petroleum Institute is rather suspect.

Thank you for smoking.

Poptech

10th July 2009, 08:02 AM

No pretend. Yes I read them. I already stated:

"The provided peer reviewed evidence for the arctic temperature changes being linked to solar activity."

Poptech

10th July 2009, 08:07 AM

Evidence from a researcher funded by the American Petroleum Institute is rather suspect.
Not really. The study (neither of these) you are talking about was also funded by NASA, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

D'rok

10th July 2009, 08:14 AM

Not really. The study (neither of these) you are talking about was also funded by NASA, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Soon has been fatally compromised:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=348723

Thank you for smoking.

Poptech

10th July 2009, 08:21 AM

Nope nothing is compromised.

macdoc

10th July 2009, 08:25 AM

Research Physicist, Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Chief Science Adviser at the Frontiers of Freedom's Center for Science and Public Policy which was set up after a $100,000 ExxonMobil grant in 2002. Former Science Director, Tech Central Station. Former Senior Scientist, George C. Marshall Institute.
Dr. Soon is a leading climate change skeptic and has published multiple climate-related studies with fellow George Marshall and Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics scientist Sallie Baliunas. Soon contends that climate change has been greatly exaggerated, and is not caused by human activity, and that any changes in global temperature are natural. One of his primary arguments is that solar activity causes climate temperature fluctuations.
Willie Soon is a physicist at the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He is an independent research scientist in the Harvard Department of Astronomy, and an astrophysicist at the Mount Wilson Observatory.

:dl:

not compromised in the least.....

on the other hand CURRENT science :rolleyes:

Changes In The Sun Are Not Causing Global Warming, New Study Shows

ScienceDaily (May 12, 2009) — With the U.S. Congress beginning to consider regulations on greenhouse gases, a troubling hypothesis about how the sun may impact global warming is finally laid to rest.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511122425.htm

The sun variations have a role...a minor one....

care to answer this yet/??

Originally Posted by Myriad
As one of those non-experts on climatology, but possessing a passing knowledge of basic physics, here's my take on all the "things I may not know about climate change."

There is a gray box, which represents the earth's surface. Specifically, a region encompassing the atmosphere, the ocean, the soil, and the top few meters of bedrock. This overlaps substantially with the biosphere but is not necessarily the same, so rather than possibly misuse the term (or some other) I'll invent my own and just keep calling it the "gray box."

The gray box contains a certain amount of heat.

There are two significant heat influxes to the gray box: solar radiation, and heat conducted and convected to the surface from the earth's interior.

There is one significant heat efflux from the gray box: radiation into space.

(There are in addition a number of other heat influxes, which I judge to be insignificant. These include kinetic energy of meteors, tidal friction, radiation from the moon and other astral bodies, and nuclear reactions occurring on or near the surface.)

Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere decreases the rate of thermal radiation into space.

Therefore, additional heat will accumulate in the box and its temperature must increase.

"But it's more complicated than that," say the "global warming skeptics." And then proceed to describe all kinds of things going on inside the gray box. Ocean currents, water vapor, ice, plant cover, soil microbes, and so on endlessly.

And I think, no it's not more complicated than that. Heat in > heat out means temperature goes up.

If anyone wants to convince me that AGW is not a real concern warranting measures to reduce it, they must show compelling evidence of one or more of the following hypotheses:

1. That greenhouse gases are not accumulating in the atmosphere due to manmade causes.

2. That greenhouse gases do not decrease the thermal radiation efflux from the gray box.

3. That something will cause (or is causing) a decrease in heat influx (either solar radiation or heat from the earth's interior) to the gray box that balances the expected decrease in heat efflux.

4. That despite an accumulation of heat energy inside the gray box, its temperature will not rise.

5. That an increase in the temperature in the gray box is not a concern.

Number 1 appears to be contradicted by direct measurements. Number 2 appears to be contradicted by basic rules of optics. Number 3 requires a complete description of the mechanism, and strong evidence confirming that it exists. Number 4 appears to be contradicted by basic laws of thermodynamics. Number 5 requires addressing each of the obvious expected consequences of a temperature increase including melting ice, shifting climate zones, redistribution of fresh water supplies, and threats to locally adapted flora and fauna, in a quantitative way.

Number 5 is the only one that requires looking in detail inside the gray box. So, the best chance for making a convincing argument for #5 would be to work with and build upon the expertise and tools developed within the field of climatology.

The problem for most "AGW skeptics" is that they dismiss climatology in the mistaken belief that climatologists being wrong about aspects of climatology would somehow argue in favor of hypotheses 1, 2, 3, or 4. This is futile because nothing we don't know (or might be wrong about) concerning what happens inside the gray box can refute "Heat in > heat out means temperature goes up."

Abandoning the discipline of climatology leaves them with only handwaving of the "maybe the heat only heats up things whose temperature doesn't matter" or "maybe the temperature increase will be so slow that we won't notice" variety to bring to hypothesis 5.

So, back to the "AGW skeptics": what don't I know about climate change that supports hypothesis 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Poptech

10th July 2009, 08:30 AM

Oh wait did Mac just quote Exxonsecrets?

Exxon Secrets

$$$ Funded by Greenpeace

- Greenpeace (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7222) (Discover the Networks)

Founded in 1970 as a loose assortment of Canadian anti-nuclear agitators, American expatriates, and underground journalists calling themselves the "Don't Make a Wave Committee," Greenpeace is today the most influential group of the environmental Left. [...]

In the early 1990s, the organization turned its attention to the purported threat that chlorine posed to the world's water supplies. At the time, Greenpeace asserted that it would accept nothing less than the blanket prohibition of the element. "There are no uses of chlorine which we regard as safe," declared Greenpeace activist Joe Thornton, [...]

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore left the organization and now laments that the group has become "dominated by leftwingers and extremists who disregard science in the pursuit of environmental purity."

According to a December 20, 2005 New York Times report, "the F.B.I. investigated possible financial ties between [Greenpeace] members and militant groups like the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front." [...]

An expose of Greenpeace's fundraising practices carried out in 2003 by Public Interest Watch (PIW), a nonprofit watchdog group, led to a report disclosing that Greenpeace uses its Greenpeace Fund, a tax-exempt entity debarred from engaging in political advocacy and lobbying by the IRS tax code, to illegally direct funds to Greenpeace Inc., a tax-exempt organization permitted to engage in lobbying and advocacy but not to accept tax-deductible funds. PIW calculated that in 2000, $4.25 million was provided by the Greenpeace Fund in this way.

Greenpeace is heavily funded by many foundations, among which are the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Bauman Family Foundation, the Blue Moon Fund, the Columbia Foundation, the Compton Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, the Nathan orgasmings Foundation, the Scherman Foundation, Ted Turner's Turner Foundation. The organization has also drawn support from numerous celebrities, including singers Sting, Tom Jones, and Elton John, who have sponsored its "save the rainforest" campaigns. In 2004, Greenpeace received $15,844,752 in grants, and held net assets of $1,893,548. That same year, the Greenpeace Fund received grants totaling $6,866,534 and held net assets of $7,532,018.

- Greenpeace (http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/131) (Activist Cash)

Greenpeace was originally the brainchild of the radical “Don’t Make a Wave Committee,” a group of American draft-dodgers who fled to Vancouver in 1969 and, supported by money from anti-war Quaker organizations, got into the business of forcibly blocking American nuclear tests. Over the years the group has loudly made its feelings known on a variety of issues (nuclear testing, whaling, and global warming, for instance), and its Amsterdam-based activist moguls pull the strings on what is estimated to be a $360 million global empire.

Here in the United States, however, Greenpeace is a relatively modest activist group, spending about $10 million per year. And the lion’s share of that budget in recent years has gone to outrageous attempts to smear agricultural biotech products and place doubts about the safety of genetically improved foods in the minds of American consumers. [...]

Patrick Moore was one of a dozen or so activists who founded Greenpeace in the basement of a Unitarian Church in Vancouver. Within 7 years, the organization had footholds in over two dozen countries and a $100 million budget. As eco-activists in general found themselves suddenly invited into the meeting-places of business and government, Greenpeace made the decision to take even more extreme positions, rather than being drawn in to collaboration with their former enemies.

Moore broke with his comrades during this period, and has emerged as an articulate critic of his former brainchild. Referring to Greenpeace’s “eco-extremism” in March 2000, he described the group in Oregon Wheat magazine as “Anti-human”; “antitechnology and anti-science”; “Anti-organization” and “pro-anarchy”; “anti-trade”; “anti-free-enterprise”; “anti-democratic”; and “basically anti-civilization.”

Writing in Canada’s National Post in October 2001, Patrick Moore offered the following critique: “I had no idea that after I left in 1986 they would evolve into a band of scientific illiterates…. Clearly, my former Greenpeace colleagues are either not reading the morning paper or simply don't care about the truth.”

D'rok

10th July 2009, 08:39 AM

Poptech you are a laugh riot. 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 smoking.

sol invictus

10th July 2009, 08:41 AM

"Physical Geography" is a place to peer review a climatology result?

I don't understand. Why not? Climatology is a part of physical geography, and it's one of the topics that journal covers.

http://bellwether.metapress.com/content/q761v1hu543t/?p=15fddd6373ed41b1b2ccf295e9c11155&pi=0

Soon has been fatally compromised:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=348723

Thank you for smoking.

Hmmm. To be honest, that article doesn't do much compromising. The most damning thing is that he received some funding from the oil industry. The rest is just vague attacks on his work with no details.

I'm not saying his work was or wasn't crap, but that article doesn't convince me either way. This looks much more solid:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-an-old-millennium/

D'rok

10th July 2009, 08:45 AM

Hmmm. To be honest, that article doesn't do much compromising. The most damning thing is that he received some funding from the oil industry. The rest is just vague attacks on his work with no details.

I'm not saying his work was or wasn't crap, but that article doesn't convince me either way. This looks much more solid:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-an-old-millennium/

Uh-oh....you probably just triggered a Poptech linkdump by citing realclimate.org.

The article I posted also notes that Soon is a paid consultant for a conservative anti-AGW lobby group.

Megalodon

10th July 2009, 08:55 AM

Actually it's more damning that 4 reviewers resigned from the journal, and the editor said that the reviewers failed to pick up methodological flaws...

Subduction Zone

10th July 2009, 09:40 AM

Actually it's more damning that 4 reviewers resigned from the journal, and the editor said that the reviewers failed to pick up methodological flaws...

If there were methodological flaw what were they?

Megalodon

10th July 2009, 09:52 AM

If there were methodological flaw what were they?

Didn't read the paper, so can't tell for sure. But there's some info from here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/#SB03)

In an unprecedented (to our knowledge) act of protest, chief editor Hans von Storch and 3 additional editors subsequently resigned from Climate Research in response to the fundamental documented failures of the editorial process at the journal. A detailed account of these events are provided by Chris Mooney in the Skeptical Inquirer and The American Prospect, by David Appell in Scientific American, and in a news brief in Nature. The journal’s publisher himself (Otto Kline) eventually stated that “[the conclusions drawn] cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in the paper”.

...

Next, we consider the paper by Soon et al (2004) published in GRL which criticized the way temperature data series had been smoothed in the IPCC report and elsewhere. True to form, contrarians immediately sold the results as ‘invalidating’ the conclusions of the IPCC, with the lead author Willie Soon himself writing an opinion piece to this effect. Once again, a few short months later, a followup article was published by one of us (Mann, 2004) that invalidated the Soon et al (2004) conclusions, demonstrating (with links to supporting Matlab source codes and data) how (a) the authors had, in an undisclosed manner, inappropriately compared trends calculated over differing time intervals and (b) had not used standard, objective statistical criteria to determine how data series should be treated near the beginning and end of the data. It is unfortunate that a followup paper even had to be published, as the flaws in the original study were so severe as to have rendered the study of essentially no scientific value.

BTW, I was wrong, it wasn't 4 reviewers resigning, but 4 editors, including the chief editor.

BenBurch

10th July 2009, 10:02 AM

Geography in only descriptive. And only descriptive of the EARTH.

Twiler

10th July 2009, 10:02 AM

Poptech, you're not going to be taken seriously when you keep making vague allegations and hurling insults. If you really wish to convince people you're going to have to be polite and patient.

sol invictus

10th July 2009, 11:13 AM

Actually it's more damning that 4 reviewers resigned from the journal, and the editor said that the reviewers failed to pick up methodological flaws...

BTW, I was wrong, it wasn't 4 reviewers resigning, but 4 editors, including the chief editor.

Yes, that is rather telling...

Geography in only descriptive. And only descriptive of the EARTH.

That really isn't the case. You seem to have in mind the kind of geography that's taught in primary school classes. Geography as an academic discipline is much more broad - it incorporates climatology, oceanography, geology, etc., and it's not only descriptive.

Here's wiki's summary:
Physical geography (also known as geosystems or physiography) is one of the three major subfields of geography[1]. Physical geography focuses on understanding the processes and patterns in the natural environment, as opposed to the cultural or built environment, the domain of human geography. Within the body of physical geography, the Earth is often split either into several spheres or environments, the main spheres being the atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere and pedosphere. Research in physical geography is often interdisciplinary and uses the systems approach.

Physical geography is that branch of science,which deals with the study of processes and patterns in the natural environment like atmosphere, biosphere, geosphere.

BenBurch

10th July 2009, 11:26 AM

Fair enough. We astrophysics nerds don't deal with it much, Sol Invictus. :-)

Dancing David

10th July 2009, 01:24 PM

I have never lied or stole anything, though your desperate attempts to slander me continue.

That was because it was locked and then cut to pieces. After which it lost all semblance of what was going on. I cannot have my responses butchered and expect to continue.

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.

I even got M. Mozina to respond reasonably. Can you? I have not used ad homs at all with you.

No there will be extensive ad hominem attacks and attempts at ridicule and then slander. Anything in a pathetic attempt to discredit the poster who challenges the religious beliefs of some here.

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.

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

Where is the first chart you show from?

Really? Prove I was the first one to mention the Arctic in this thread.

You so funny!

I was responding to your off-topic post and then you complained about people being off-topic. Surely I do not have to explain irony to you?

You take this way too seriously and are being rather rude to me.

Do you even read these threads or just my comments? Why do you not state this to anyone else? Interesting the blatant bias.

No bias, why are you so hopped up and paranoid? I read both sides and skim the bickering. I was responding to your post, which should go back to the other thread.

Dancing David

10th July 2009, 01:26 PM

Are you serious? DO YOU NOT KNOW WHAT SARCASM IS? What is clear is I am dealing with people who cannot comprehend simple things.

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

Where is the first chart that you posted from, what is the source?

Does it bother you to be asked that?

Dancing David

10th July 2009, 01:32 PM

Where is this chart from?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=14523&d=1247097501

I am curious as it is unattributed.

BenBurch

10th July 2009, 02:25 PM

Where is this chart from?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=14523&d=1247097501

I am curious as it is unattributed.

From here;

http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ee-20-4_7-stockwell2.pdf

macdoc

10th July 2009, 03:05 PM

From the link...

Figure 1 replicates their methodology, using new global mean
temperature data points for 2007 and 2008.

Back to back La Nina's and they think that invalidates the IPCC

:dl:

What a joke

Megalodon

10th July 2009, 03:59 PM

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...

Dancing David

10th July 2009, 04:44 PM

From here;

http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ee-20-4_7-stockwell2.pdf

Thanks.

Poptech

10th July 2009, 05:53 PM

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" (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6473) (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

10th July 2009, 05:56 PM

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

10th July 2009, 06:19 PM

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

10th July 2009, 06:22 PM

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

10th July 2009, 06:29 PM

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

10th July 2009, 06:35 PM

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

10th July 2009, 06:53 PM

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

10th July 2009, 07:15 PM

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

10th July 2009, 07:26 PM

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

10th July 2009, 07:34 PM

...

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://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4831216&postcount=73

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

Then you posted here in the thread:
June 23 at 9:03 pm
http://forums.randi.org/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://forums.randi.org/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" (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6473) (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

10th July 2009, 07:34 PM

...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

10th July 2009, 07:44 PM

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

10th July 2009, 07:54 PM

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

Do you know what a "trend" is?

Poptech

10th July 2009, 08:03 PM

Do you know what a "trend" is?
Trend (Defined (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/trend)) - "The general direction in which something tends to move"

D'rok

10th July 2009, 08:43 PM

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

10th July 2009, 08:47 PM

Then maybe an ideology-free discussion can occur. What do you say?
I do not believe that is possible with Global Warming.

BenBurch

10th July 2009, 09:03 PM

I do not believe that is possible with Global Warming.

Of course it is.

D'rok

10th July 2009, 09:03 PM

I do not believe that is possible with Global Warming.

Then start your threads in the Politics section.

Poptech

10th July 2009, 09:39 PM

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

10th July 2009, 09:52 PM

Trend (Defined (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/trend)) - "The general direction in which something tends to move"

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

BenBurch

10th July 2009, 10:08 PM

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

10th July 2009, 10:21 PM

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

Scientifically based ideological discussion? Does not compute.

Poptech

10th July 2009, 11:55 PM

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

11th July 2009, 12:07 AM

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

11th July 2009, 12:16 AM

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

11th July 2009, 01:25 AM

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 (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf) 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 (http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ee-20-4_7-stockwell2.pdf) uses exactly the same "data padding technique" as Rahmstorf et al.'s paper (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf). 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 :jaw-dropp !
Well deserving a
:dl:

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

11th July 2009, 01:35 AM

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

11th July 2009, 01:40 AM

Rahmstorf et al. paper (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/%7Estefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf) 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 (http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ee-20-4_7-stockwell2.pdf) uses exactly the same "data padding technique" as Rahmstorf et al.'s paper (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/%7Estefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf). 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

11th July 2009, 02:47 AM

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 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4890759#post4890759)
Rahmstorf's paper had nothing to do with matching IPCC TAR predictions and thus Rahmstorf's paper is discredited.

macdoc

11th July 2009, 02:50 AM

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/press-releases/archive/2004/royal-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

11th July 2009, 03:09 AM

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. :forks:

Megalodon

11th July 2009, 04:02 AM

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

11th July 2009, 04:34 AM

...:boggled: not given to understatement lately are we.....;)

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

Dancing David

11th July 2009, 05:15 AM

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

Who you were talking to!

http://forums.randi.org/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

11th July 2009, 05:20 AM

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

11th July 2009, 05:22 AM

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

11th July 2009, 05:57 AM

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 (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6533) (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" (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6473) (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 (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/source-of-fishy-odor-confirmed-rahmstorf-did-change-smoothing/) (The Blackboard)

Poptech

11th July 2009, 06:05 AM

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

11th July 2009, 06:19 AM

...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 (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/04/30/what-you-cant-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

11th July 2009, 06:48 AM

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?

Poptech

11th July 2009, 07:21 AM

The paper clearly states that the models were run beginning in 1990. You can't even comprehend something that is plainly stated?
The TAR projections were released in 2001 not 1990. Hindcasting can be tuned.

Reality Check

11th July 2009, 04:37 PM

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...
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 (http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ee-20-4_7-stockwell2.pdf) (David R. B. Stockwell) and the paper he is analysing - Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf)(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.

Reality Check

11th July 2009, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4894272#post4894272)
The paper clearly states that the models were run beginning in 1990. You can't even comprehend something that is plainly stated?

The TAR projections were released in 2001 not 1990. Hindcasting can be tuned.
Hindcasting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindcast) 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.

BenBurch

11th July 2009, 06:03 PM

CapelDodger

11th July 2009, 07:53 PM

I do not believe that [ideology-free discussion] is possible with Global Warming.

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?

CapelDodger

11th July 2009, 08:24 PM

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.

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.

macdoc

11th July 2009, 08:28 PM

: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.

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.

Poptech

11th July 2009, 09:23 PM

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.
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

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.