To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[IanC]

Here, a non-Sou analysis of Spencer's bullshit graphic written by an environmental scientists from Wright State University

Seeing the environmental forest: Roy Spencer and 95% of models are wrong

explain in your own words what you think has been done wrong. I really dont think you understand what is going on.

I can replicate the UAH/HAD portion of the graph easily.

 

[IanC]

screw it. crick wont answer anyways.

here is HADv4 and UAH5.6 plotted up from 1979, five year average to smooth the line, least squares trend line.

offset to start together at 1979 (edit- by trend)

offset again to start at zero in 1983. sorry I cannot screen off pre 1983 lines

a pretty good match to Spencer's plot. obviously nothing nefarious.

 

[Crick]

A very thorough and objective (at least far more objective than Spencer's writings) commentary on some of the work of John Spencer

Seeing the environmental forest: Roy Spencer and 95% of models are wrong

Roy Spencer's Great Blunder, Part 2

Roy Spencer's Great Blunder, Part 3

and

How to cook a graph in three easy lessons

 

[IanC]

A very thorough and objective (at least far more objective than Spencer's writings) commentary on some of the work of John Spencer

Seeing the environmental forest: Roy Spencer and 95% of models are wrong

Roy Spencer's Great Blunder, Part 2

Roy Spencer's Great Blunder, Part 3

and

How to cook a graph in three easy lessons

holy ****!

at least the first time you gave a link to something related to our discussion. now you've veered of into linking up anyone who has disagreed with Spencer on any subject.

where is your personal description of what you think is wrong. just so I know what to focus in on.

and his first name is Roy, btw

 

[IanC]

crick has a big problem with Spencer showing how models obviously diverge from measured reality but he has no problems with M Mann clipping off inconvenient parts of the record in his graphs, while padding the numbers and using creative smoothing to hide his malfeasance. the stench of double standards is overwhelming.

 

[Crick]

A very thorough and objective (at least far more objective than Spencer's writings) commentary on some of the work of John Spencer

Seeing the environmental forest: Roy Spencer and 95% of models are wrong

Roy Spencer's Great Blunder, Part 2

Roy Spencer's Great Blunder, Part 3

and

How to cook a graph in three easy lessons

at least the first time you gave a link to something related to our discussion. now you've veered of into linking up anyone who has disagreed with Spencer on any subject.

The first link IS a discussion of our topic: Spencer's claim (and yours) that the CMIP5 models all run hot. The next two are a critique of Spencer's "book" The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists (New York: Encounter Books, 2010). I inadvertenly left out the link to Part 1 of that critique, here: Roy Spencer's Great Blunder, Part 1 . The purpose of my linking to these articles is to show, basically, Spencer's incompetent science, unprofessional behavior and dishonesty.

where is your personal description of what you think is wrong. just so I know what to focus in on.

It has also been my purpose to use the opinions of people a great deal more knowledgeable in this topic than you or I to dispute Spencer's claim. You keep demanding my personal explanation. That is not an attempt to discern the truth about Spencer's claim, it is an attempt to attack me. Sorry, but I'll rely on the opinion of the experts. If you can provide some reason why you should think I'm a better judge than the others mentioned, I'd love to add it to my resume. If you really don't know what to focus on, I suggest you reread the critiques of Sou and Milks. If you insist, I'd be interested in your explanation of Spencer's use of a 5 year baseline vice the standard 30 year baseline and why he selected 5 years not only within the CMIP5 calibration period but the 5 years when UAH was most consistently below HadCRUT4. And if you believe Spencer got it all right, then you must believe that Sou and Milks are being deceptive.

For instance, what deception do you believe Sou made use of to produce this graphic on her HotWhopper page?

And what deception do you believe Milks made use of to produce this graphic on his Seeing the Environment page?

These clearly do not agree with Spencer's graphic. So please explain what they've done wrong?

and his first name is Roy, btw

I've been discussing his poor performance in this and other discussion boards for several years now and it may be clearly seen that I am familiar with his name.

 

[westwall]

Here, a non-Sou analysis of Spencer's bullshit graphic written by an environmental scientists from Wright State University

Seeing the environmental forest: Roy Spencer and 95% of models are wrong

Ummmmm, I think your blogger forgot about Hansens predictions...and a whole bunch of other stuff. Plus, how do you calibrate anything when the GISS people keep changing everything? Your blogger is really, really confused it seems.

 

[mamooth]

Since so many of the deniers demand only adjusted raw data be average, let's do that. At least let's revisit Zeke H. doing that. Note that Zeke gives the source code and shows where to get the data.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperatures-part-2/

So, simply averaging the raw data shows a global warming of about 1.8C over the past century, about twice of what the "adjusted" temperature data shows.

That is, the adjustments make the warming look _much_ smaller. So why do all deniers pretend the exact opposite? And if they'll lie so brazenly about that, isn't it logical to assume they're lying about everything?

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Obviously running a model BACKWARDS is a different animal from using it as a predictor. You can start/stop/adjust/initialize/restart any ole time you want with KNOWN DATA.. That's why claims to excellent back-projection of models are ALWAYS highly suspect..

And a chart like that -- never tells you WHEN the models were run.. That one obviously wasn't STARTED in 1882..

 

[flacaltenn]

Since so many of the deniers demand only adjusted raw data be average, let's do that. At least let's revisit Zeke H. doing that. Note that Zeke gives the source code and shows where to get the data.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperatures-part-2/

So, simply averaging the raw data shows a global warming of about 1.8C over the past century, about twice of what the "adjusted" temperature data shows.

That is, the adjustments make the warming look _much_ smaller. So why do all deniers pretend the exact opposite? And if they'll lie so brazenly about that, isn't it logical to assume they're lying about everything?

No -- that approach is just silly and stupid.. Because there is no regular spatial sampling to it. And as far as your lying king goes here -- the USHCN speaks for itself.. McIntyre or no McIntyre..

 

[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.

crick- did you not read this?

there are many ways to normalize a graph. all of them wrong in some way. Spencer focusses on UAH and the start of the satellite program. Sou and others want the reference point to be something else, which will change the optics. there is no way to show that the models run hotter than the measured temps. changing how you normalize the graph may postpone the departure of the model trend line from the 5-95% range for a little while but it does not change the fact that climate models run hot.

you again refuse to explain in your own words why you think Spencer is wrong and some others are right. I believe that is because you have so little understanding of this that you are not coming to an information based conclusion, rather you are just picking a preferred outcome and deferring to an authority chosen on the basis of proximity to your version of AGW dogma.

 

[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.

Obviously running a model BACKWARDS is a different animal from using it as a predictor. You can start/stop/adjust/initialize/restart any ole time you want with KNOWN DATA.. That's why claims to excellent back-projection of models are ALWAYS highly suspect..

And a chart like that -- never tells you WHEN the models were run.. That one obviously wasn't STARTED in 1882..

hindcasts are obviously tuned to get the best result. I believe Tisdale uses the open access KLMO (or whatever it's called) for the model data, which would give the run dates, and forecast/hindcast deliniation.

 

[Crick]

Here, a non-Sou analysis of Spencer's bullshit graphic written by an environmental scientists from Wright State University

Seeing the environmental forest: Roy Spencer and 95% of models are wrong

Ummmmm, I think your blogger forgot about Hansens predictions...and a whole bunch of other stuff. Plus, how do you calibrate anything when the GISS people keep changing everything? Your blogger is really, really confused it seems.

Please explain what you think Hansens's predictions have to do with Spencer's lies about the CMIP5 models.

 

[Crick]

crick- did you not read this?

there are many ways to normalize a graph. all of them wrong in some way. Spencer focusses on UAH and the start of the satellite program. Sou and others want the reference point to be something else, which will change the optics. there is no way to show that the models run hotter than the measured temps. changing how you normalize the graph may postpone the departure of the model trend line from the 5-95% range for a little while but it does not change the fact that climate models run hot.

Yes I did

you again refuse to explain in your own words why you think Spencer is wrong and some others are right. I believe that is because you have so little understanding of this that you are not coming to an information based conclusion, rather you are just picking a preferred outcome and deferring to an authority chosen on the basis of proximity to your version of AGW dogma.

Do you think the majority of the actual authorities on this topic agree with Spencer? Are you unable to understand what Sou and Milks are saying? You have yet to refute, or even counter, what either have said about Spencer's deception.

I find it interesting that you criticize me for preferring the opinions of experts. How many times have I stated here, in clear and certain terms, that my opinion IS that the opinion of the majority of the experts is the likeliest to be correct and thus THAT is what I accept.

And, I am still waiting for you to provide some justification for Spencer's use of a 5 year baseline vice the standard 30 and perhaps you can comment on what YOU believe (since you're so fond of our personal opinions) to be the effect of picking a 5 year baseline where RSS is atypically warmer than UAH.

And, perhaps I haven't opened the proper thread, but did you explain what you believe Sou and Milks did to produce the graphics I posed showing completely acceptable agreement between CMIP5 and observed temperatures? Either Sou and Milks are being deceptive or Spencer is being deceptive. Sou and Milks have explained what they believe Spencer has done. Where is the counterpoint?

 

[IanC]

Since so many of the deniers demand only adjusted raw data be average, let's do that. At least let's revisit Zeke H. doing that. Note that Zeke gives the source code and shows where to get the data.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperatures-part-2/

So, simply averaging the raw data shows a global warming of about 1.8C over the past century, about twice of what the "adjusted" temperature data shows.

That is, the adjustments make the warming look _much_ smaller. So why do all deniers pretend the exact opposite? And if they'll lie so brazenly about that, isn't it logical to assume they're lying about everything?

I dont have the time to check out Zeke's post right now but I bet this has to do with trashing Steve Goddard's articles that make a mockery of US temps. US temps are so oversampled that it is hard to get a bad selection. these are world data and there are definite gaps in coverage.

look at Zeke's graph. there are two discontinuites, one at 1950 and the other at 1990. the first is caused by US ships coming into WWII and creating many more data points mostly using engine intakes, and by 1950 leaving the scene and British ships taking over with bucket readings.

the second step jump in the graph is more interesting and much less discussed. in 1990, due to the Cold War in part, the amount of reporting temp stations dropped precipitously. the remaining stations were overpopulated with lower latitude, lower altitude, and urban stations. while attempts were made to adjust weightings, etc, it launched a huge jump in global temp.

I have a funny feeling that there is some interesting artifacts in the records because of this.

anyways, I'll probably get around to Zeke's article and have more to say.

 

[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.

crick- did you not read this?

there are many ways to normalize a graph. all of them wrong in some way. Spencer focusses on UAH and the start of the satellite program. Sou and others want the reference point to be something else, which will change the optics. there is no way to show that the models run hotter than the measured temps. changing how you normalize the graph may postpone the departure of the model trend line from the 5-95% range for a little while but it does not change the fact that climate models run hot.

you again refuse to explain in your own words why you think Spencer is wrong and some others are right. I believe that is because you have so little understanding of this that you are not coming to an information based conclusion, rather you are just picking a preferred outcome and deferring to an authority chosen on the basis of proximity to your version of AGW dogma.

Do you think the majority of the actual authorities on this topic agree with Spencer?

I dont think most authorities would use the start of satellites as the reference point. the ones that did would have a graph similar to Spencer's

 

[Crick]

The ones that did and that used a 5 year baseline. And what do you believe Sou and Milk did wrong to produce a graph with acceptable CMIP5 performance? That is, assuming you believe their graphs to be wrong.

 

[IanC]

The ones that did and that used a 5 year baseline. And what do you believe Sou and Milk did wrong to produce a graph with acceptable CMIP5 performance? That is, assuming you believe their graphs to be wrong.

more strawman accusations. post up where I said their variations are wrong. I said every graph is wrong, but every graph is trying to make a comparison that is easily understandable at a glance. I really wish you would at least try to understand what I am saying to you. dont you ever learn anything?

 

[Crick]

I understand you have to duck and weave more than you ought to. Spencer and Sou cannot both be right. Spencer and Mlik cannot both be right. You have argued here repeatedly that you believe Spencer is right. Therefore you must believe Sou and Milk are wrong. I'd just like to know what you think they did wrong. Feel free to pull in the experts. Spencer must be able to explain this and he's responded to Sou on more than one occasion. What has he said?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A very thorough and objective (at least far more objective than Spencer's writings) commentary on some of the work of John Spencer

Seeing the environmental forest: Roy Spencer and 95% of models are wrong

Roy Spencer's Great Blunder, Part 2

Roy Spencer's Great Blunder, Part 3

and

How to cook a graph in three easy lessons

at least the first time you gave a link to something related to our discussion. now you've veered of into linking up anyone who has disagreed with Spencer on any subject.

The first link IS a discussion of our topic: Spencer's claim (and yours) that the CMIP5 models all run hot. The next two are a critique of Spencer's "book" The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists (New York: Encounter Books, 2010). I inadvertenly left out the link to Part 1 of that critique, here: Roy Spencer's Great Blunder, Part 1 . The purpose of my linking to these articles is to show, basically, Spencer's incompetent science, unprofessional behavior and dishonesty.

where is your personal description of what you think is wrong. just so I know what to focus in on.

It has also been my purpose to use the opinions of people a great deal more knowledgeable in this topic than you or I to dispute Spencer's claim. You keep demanding my personal explanation. That is not an attempt to discern the truth about Spencer's claim, it is an attempt to attack me. Sorry, but I'll rely on the opinion of the experts. If you can provide some reason why you should think I'm a better judge than the others mentioned, I'd love to add it to my resume. If you really don't know what to focus on, I suggest you reread the critiques of Sou and Milks. If you insist, I'd be interested in your explanation of Spencer's use of a 5 year baseline vice the standard 30 year baseline and why he selected 5 years not only within the CMIP5 calibration period but the 5 years when UAH was most consistently below HadCRUT4. And if you believe Spencer got it all right, then you must believe that Sou and Milks are being deceptive.

For instance, what deception do you believe Sou made use of to produce this graphic on her HotWhopper page?

And what deception do you believe Milks made use of to produce this graphic on his Seeing the Environment page?

These clearly do not agree with Spencer's graphic. So please explain what they've done wrong?

and his first name is Roy, btw

I've been discussing his poor performance in this and other discussion boards for several years now and it may be clearly seen that I am familiar with his name.

I've never heard a coherent explanation as to how you get reading accurate to a tenth of a degree back in 1880