Comments on: Opportunism and the Models

By: Jeff Norman

Jeff Norman — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:06:55 +0000

Oh, now I have it.

Variated Integer Accumulation Graphical Regression Analysis.

By: Lucy Skywalker

Lucy Skywalker — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:55:15 +0000

Re: Jean S (#16), Translated, this says "the trend in the Team's ability to spin the data has to outstrip the opposite trend in the data itself" Re: Hubris « the Air Vent (#37), ROTFLMAO with these "stiffen end-points"

By: Craig Loehle

Craig Loehle — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:21:59 +0000

Re: Phil. (#43), The DATA covered 2000 years before smoothing (1996 years to be precise).

By: Phil.

Phil. — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:10:16 +0000

Re: Craig Loehle (#42), Perhaps because they were mislead by the title into believing that your reconstruction covered 2000 years?

By: Craig Loehle

Craig Loehle — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:35:19 +0000

Re: Rob Spooner (#41), Bingo! When I published my paper on climate paleo-reconstruction and used the midpoint for my smoothed data (ending 1/2 period before the end of the data) commenters kept nagging that I didn't go all the way to the end.

By: Rob Spooner

Rob Spooner — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:05:37 +0000

I’m not a scientist, real climate or otherwise, just an ordinary layman with some background in math. As I read this discussion, two concerns arise.

The first is that an 11-year-smoothed calculation does not result in something on the y-axis that can be called temperature. It’s an index with no physical meaning, just as the Dow Jones Industrial Average has no financial meaning.

However, this is a small concern since the result of the calculation is supposed to be something like some weighted average of temperature. I can live with that. However, the x-axis is a problem. It’s one thing when data is smoothed but the granularity is too small to be seen. An annual chart of daily temperatures that takes a day-night average can show July 3 as a point even though it’s a 24-hour-span.

On the other hand, an 11-year smoothing on a graph that shows annual variations raises the question, what are we looking at? The x-axis shows specific years but they are endpoints of ranges that dwarf the difference between successive points.

Just as importantly, why are the values reported for the endpoints? That’s a rhetorical question, to which the answer is obvious. It’s not going to make much of a headline to announce that latest research has shown that a smoothed temperature index kept rising right up through December 31, 2003.

By: lucia

lucia — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:48:47 +0000

JeanS

Since 2007, reports comparing the IPCC projections of 1990 with observations show…

So, they are comparing data to the FAR? Those are “the IPCC projections of 1990″. Even if Stefan thinks the TAR projections should be tested since 1990, they were published in 2001. So, they are “the IPCC projections of 2001.”

By: Willis Eschenbach

Willis Eschenbach — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:13:46 +0000

Steve, you say:

Secondly, Rahmstorf has zeroed both models and observations on 1990. I recall some controversy about Willis Eschenbach zeroing GISS models on 1958; I have a vague recollection of Hansen’s dogs saying that this was WRONG. I don’t vouch for this recollection, but, if the events were as I vaguely recall, I don’t see any material difference in Rahmstorf’s centering here.

Indeed your memory is correct. I got heavily and repeatedly slagged on the weasel’s blog for this very thing indeed, but of course, Rahmstorf is a team player and I’m not …

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:17:02 +0000

Re: David Stockwell (#36), David, stay tuned on this tomorrow. This little story is going to turn into a comedy.

By: Hubris « the Air Vent

Hubris « the Air Vent — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:58:14 +0000

[...] while climatology lately has often stiffen the endpoints of graphs to hide temperature down trends HERE, (check the NOAA also) they probably didn’t decide to stiffen the downtrend in Figure 1 but [...]