To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[SSDD]

Odd that Ian can express such low opinions of SSDD's ability to reason and his understanding of basic science, yet laugh with him when they think they've been clever. I never realized I could be such a unifying influence.

Tell us Ian, why did the slope of the observations change at the indicated point?

You would probably need to ask the guys who wrote the failing models.

 

[Crick]

God are you stupid. Allow me to repeat my query (TO IAN)

Tell us Ian, why did the slope of the observations change at the indicated point?

 

[Muhammed]

Let's try a little more detail in the analysis Ian

Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception
Sou | 7:39 AM

Update: Today Roy Spencer responded below. I've now written another article explaining his deception a slightly different way.

Sou 21 May 2014



Sheesh! How's this for unadulterated chart fudging. Roy Spencer has put up a chart and proclaimed (archived here):
...the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):
Let's look at how he's conned his denier fans. Below I've plotted the CMIP5 composite mean against UAH and GISTemp using a 1981-2010 baseline, which is what UAH normally uses, and then I'll discuss what Roy Spencer has effectively done:


Data Sources: NASA, UAH and KNMI Climate Explorer

What he's effectively done is shifted the CMIP5 charts up by around 0.3 degrees. In case you find it hard to credit that even a contrarian scientist would stoop so low, here is Roy Spencer's chart, with my annotations:


Adapted from Source: Roy Spencer
Not only did Roy effectively shift up the CMIP5 data, Roy Spencer effectively shifted down the UAH data in comparison with HadCRUT4. This is the chart of UAH and HadCRUT4 using the 1981-2010 30 year baseline - compare that to Roy Spencer's deceptive fudge:


Data sources: UAH and Met Office Hadley Centre

How did he fudge? What Roy Spencer has done is he's used a five year average - 1979-1983 to plot his data instead of the normal 30 year baseline. Why did he pick 1979 to 1983 as the baseline? The answer can only be that he wanted to deceive his readers. Here is a comparison of UAH and HadCRUT4 using his shonky five year baseline compared to his normal 30-year 1981-2010 baseline.




That's not all that he's done. If you compare the five year baseline chart I plotted with Roy's chart - his chart shows UAH lower than HadCRUT4 in every year. That's not what my chart above shows, even using his shonky 5-year baseline. Roy said he's using "running five year means" - which only shows the elaborate lengths he felt he had to go to in order to deceive people.

Anyway, to further illustrate Roy's shonkiness, here is the longer term CMIP5 and CMIP3 means vs GISTemp using the normal 30 year baseline:


Data Sources: NASA and KNMI Climate Explorer

The divergence only becomes apparent from around 2005. Going by Roy's past behaviour, I shouldn't be surprised at him fudging the data to this extent, but I am.

Bullshit!!!!!

I noticed it long before 2005.

 

[Crick]

You did? Did anyone care?

 

[IanC]

Odd that Ian can express such low opinions of SSDD's ability to reason and his understanding of basic science, yet laugh with him when they think they've been clever. I never realized I could be such a unifying influence.

Tell us Ian, why did the slope of the observations change at the indicated point?

now you want to tell me what I can consider funny?

I already told you that I find both you and SSDD very similar, even if you guys are at the opposite ends of the climate war spectrum. I have laughed with you when you made a funny-cause-its-true barb at SSDD. now I am laughing because he has done the same to you.

you simply ignore evidence that doesnt fit your worldview, even if it comes from your favourite source, the IPCC. the next time you will haughtily demand proof and a link to the source, even though you know it to be legitimate. youre not quite as bad as Old Rocks for 'forgetting' inconvenient evidence but youre close. on another thread you are 'ignoring' tropo hotspot projections even though they come from the IPCC. you believe every thing youre told by 'climate science consensus'! until a person with the right authority tells you to believe something different.

I actually think SSDD has more character than you. he may be wrong on some things but he isnt about to abdicate his right to make up his own mind. you just trot out the same old verses from your Holy Book, and repeat what you talked about at Bible group. ( no offense directed to Christians). and you 'forget' the crazy verses that dont make sense anymore, insinuate that they were never there, ignore direct references to them.

 

[IanC]

Tell us Ian, why did the slope of the observations change at the indicated point?

you keep yammering away at a moot point. he normalized the start points so that we could compare the trends.

this is the best (and earliest, I think) graph.

trend only, 1979 set to zero.

it's trickier if you want to show the variance as well. there are many ways to normalize the start point. if Spencer wanted to use an average of the first five years, I think he should have used the average but started it at 1981, the middle of the averaging period. there are many ways to do it and they are ALL wrong. its a matter of getting the information out in a recognizable way. these graphs are meant to show the trend differences between model output and reality. they are not supposed to be global temperature graphs.

 

[Crick]

I'm really disappointed in you Ian. You haven't spent one word attempting to defend what Spencer did with that data or those model results. Sou's reveal is correct. Spencer tried to argue with her and failed. You haven't even tried. Spencer's graph is complete shite and you soil yourself pushing it.

 

[IanC]

I'm really disappointed in you Ian. You haven't spent one word attempting to defend what Spencer did with that data or those model results. Sou's reveal is correct. Spencer tried to argue with her and failed. You haven't even tried. Spencer's graph is complete shite and you soil yourself pushing it.

hmmm....I have a suggestion for you crick. every time you feel 'disappointed' with me I think you should go back and re-read my comments because you probably havent understood them.

my position is that the Christy graph showing trend lines only, with every line starting at 1979 is the most informative and easily understood graph. the models run hot.

the problem with comparing things on a graph is how to show what changes are happening. to do that you have to 'normalize' the starting position on the graph so that everything starts at the beginning and the changes are obvious. there is no 'right' way to do it. it is always a trade off to lose some precision but get a more easily understood comparison. still with me?

you (actually Sou, you seldom have original thoughts) decided that she didnt like the way Spencer normalized the starting values (offsets). no matter what values you use, the trend for the models is higher than the trend for the measured temperatures.

if you offset the models to a lower value, they will take longer to diverge out of the +/- error range. but they are still diverging. even the IPCC graph shows that they are diverging and have just about broken out of the 95% significance level.

and for RCP4.5 to boot.

you say I should be defending Spencer. why? I dont particularly like the way he did his graph. if he used the 5 year average from 79-83 then he should have started plotting from 81 in my mind, but so what? the models run hot!! no amount of complaining over offsets is going to change that.

 

[IanC]

crick is going to ignore this thread now. but in a few days or weeks he will trot out Sou's 'destruction' of Spencer.

 

[IanC]

here is a good example of models vs measurements. the model is 'trained' to be reasonably representative of the global warming period, 1980-2000. it sucks at producing the earlier part of last century, and it frantically diverges during the new century.

 

[IanC]

instead of just trend lines, this graph uses 5 year avgs but normalizes the start date at 1979 by the trend line of the different datasets.

 

[jc456]

Again, what does the phrase "widely accepted theory" mean Mr Westwall? How does one discern what the dominant theory on any question is Mr Westwall? Why do you think mainstream science believes you and the rest of the deniers here are fringe whackjobs Mr Westwall?

CON-FUCKING-SENSUS

From Wikipedia's article on "Scientific Theory"

The scientific method involves the proposal and testing of hypotheses, by deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether the predictions are valid. This provides evidence either for or against the hypothesis. When enough experimental results have been gathered in a particular area of inquiry, scientists may propose an explanatory framework that accounts for as many of these as possible. This explanation is also tested, and if it fulfills the necessary criteria (see above), then the explanation becomes a theory. This can take many years, as it can be difficult or complicated to gather sufficient evidence.

Once all of the criteria have been met, it will be widely accepted by scientists (see scientific consensus) as the best available explanation of at least some phenomena. It will have made predictions of phenomena that previous theories could not explain or could not predict accurately, and it will have resisted attempts at falsification. The strength of the evidence is evaluated by the scientific community, and the most important experiments will have been replicated by multiple independent groups.

Consensus is a Cult word.

You're not addressing my post at all Frank

Speaking of experiment, you've never once show a single experiment linking trace amount of CO2 with increases in temperature. Why is that?

Why aren't you addressing my post Frank?

Why are there NO experiments that control for trace amounts of CO2?

There have been thousands of experiments but no matter what you are shown, you will simply deny the facts.

Why are you not addressing my posts Frank? A widely accepted theory is one for which the consensus of expert opinion finds the theory acceptable per the scientific method. The consensus of the experts tells us which is the dominant theory; which is the theory most likely to be correct.

I bet you're just going to pretend you never read these explanations and in two posts you'll be repeating all your ignorant bullshit once more. I'll bet money. God are you stupid.

You're not addressing my post at all Frank

Just to respond as an outsider here, Sure he did, he called a spade a spade.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Again, what does the phrase "widely accepted theory" mean Mr Westwall? How does one discern what the dominant theory on any question is Mr Westwall? Why do you think mainstream science believes you and the rest of the deniers here are fringe whackjobs Mr Westwall?

CON-FUCKING-SENSUS

From Wikipedia's article on "Scientific Theory"

The scientific method involves the proposal and testing of hypotheses, by deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether the predictions are valid. This provides evidence either for or against the hypothesis. When enough experimental results have been gathered in a particular area of inquiry, scientists may propose an explanatory framework that accounts for as many of these as possible. This explanation is also tested, and if it fulfills the necessary criteria (see above), then the explanation becomes a theory. This can take many years, as it can be difficult or complicated to gather sufficient evidence.

Once all of the criteria have been met, it will be widely accepted by scientists (see scientific consensus) as the best available explanation of at least some phenomena. It will have made predictions of phenomena that previous theories could not explain or could not predict accurately, and it will have resisted attempts at falsification. The strength of the evidence is evaluated by the scientific community, and the most important experiments will have been replicated by multiple independent groups.

Consensus is a Cult word.

You're not addressing my post at all Frank

Speaking of experiment, you've never once show a single experiment linking trace amount of CO2 with increases in temperature. Why is that?

Why aren't you addressing my post Frank?

Why are there NO experiments that control for trace amounts of CO2?

There have been thousands of experiments but no matter what you are shown, you will simply deny the facts.

Why are you not addressing my posts Frank? A widely accepted theory is one for which the consensus of expert opinion finds the theory acceptable per the scientific method. The consensus of the experts tells us which is the dominant theory; which is the theory most likely to be correct.

I bet you're just going to pretend you never read these explanations and in two posts you'll be repeating all your ignorant bullshit once more. I'll bet money. God are you stupid.

Charts without a temperature axis are NOT experiments measuring for temperature while controlling for trace amounts of CO2

 

[IanC]

instead of just trend lines, this graph uses 5 year avgs but normalizes the start date at 1979 by the trend line of the different datasets.

No opinion on this crick? I posted it for you. To illustrate the idea of normalization of comparison graphs and offsets.

Perhaps you still don't like the idea of using the start date of satellite temps. Perhaps you consider it unfair somehow.


You know, skeptics find the 1979 start date of full satellite coverage of ice extent to be a bit unfair as well. There was enough satellite data to make good estimates years before that.

If we add this extra information on ice extent to the record it certainly changes the shape of the long decline in ice extent. And the correlation values as well.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

^ 2016. Guam, still upright and above water

 

[IanC]

You have yet to even make an attempt to answer the charge that Spencer shifted the model outputs up and the observations down. This line of yours that models were cherry picked is complete nonsense and clearly shows you don't even understand what CMIP is. Here, taste reality:

Why have you abandoned this thread crick?

This graph clearly shows the models higher than the measurements at 1983, and gives the reason why.

Why do you think Sou's variation is better? How on earth do you come to the conclusion that Spencer was 'deceptive'?

I have already shown you that the start date for comparisons can make a huge difference in the optics. Spencer chose 1979 as a start date because that was the start of his satellite dataset. You don't seem to comprehend graphs or graphing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You have yet to even make an attempt to answer the charge that Spencer shifted the model outputs up and the observations down. This line of yours that models were cherry picked is complete nonsense and clearly shows you don't even understand what CMIP is. Here, taste reality:

Why have you abandoned this thread crick?

This graph clearly shows the models higher than the measurements at 1983, and gives the reason why.

Why do you think Sou's variation is better? How on earth do you come to the conclusion that Spencer was 'deceptive'?

I have already shown you that the start date for comparisons can make a huge difference in the optics. Spencer chose 1979 as a start date because that was the start of his satellite dataset. You don't seem to comprehend graphs or graphing.

Balloons are worse DENIERS!!! than the satellites!!

 

[IanC]

You have yet to even make an attempt to answer the charge that Spencer shifted the model outputs up and the observations down. This line of yours that models were cherry picked is complete nonsense and clearly shows you don't even understand what CMIP is. Here, taste reality:

Why have you abandoned this thread crick?

This graph clearly shows the models higher than the measurements at 1983, and gives the reason why.

Why do you think Sou's variation is better? How on earth do you come to the conclusion that Spencer was 'deceptive'?

I have already shown you that the start date for comparisons can make a huge difference in the optics. Spencer chose 1979 as a start date because that was the start of his satellite dataset. You don't seem to comprehend graphs or graphing.

Balloons are worse DENIERS!!! than the satellites!!

Yup. Let's not forget that according to CO2 theory that there should be more warming happening at higher levels in the troposphere, not less.

 

[IanC]

Hey crick- I had this up on an old page.

With the models offset for BEST fit, the 1983 numbers do have the model mean 0.1C lower than GISS. But the model mean still diverges wildly after 2000. And the pre 1975 figures are not exactly great either.

 

[Crick]

There are greater divergences at several other times. And I wouldn't use Bob Tisdale's data to wipe my ass.