Comments on: Rahmsmoothing and the Canadian GCM http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/02/model-vs-observation/ by Steve McIntyre Wed, 19 Jun 2013 05:32:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Cuando los estadísticos les dan clase a los chicos del clima, no se ve el CO2 por ninguna parte. « PlazaMoyua.com http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/02/model-vs-observation/#comment-348669 Mon, 27 Aug 2012 19:44:21 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6454#comment-348669 [...] de la “mannomáticas” (por Mann). En este caso fue el “rahmsmoothing” [-->].  E hizo hace pocos años uno de esas trabajos alarmistas según los cuales el nivel del mar se [...]

]]> By: Dahl-Madsen » Hidsige klimaalarmister http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/02/model-vs-observation/#comment-298150 Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:13:53 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6454#comment-298150 [...] Som stammer fra: http://climateaudit.org/2009/0…ion/ [...]

]]> By: Michael Jennings http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/02/model-vs-observation/#comment-186801 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:19:35 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6454#comment-186801 Nice Anthony, good to see you still retain your sense of humor with all the knocks you have taken for daring to be different.

]]> By: Anthony Watts http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/02/model-vs-observation/#comment-186800 Sat, 04 Jul 2009 21:45:16 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6454#comment-186800 Typo – Copenhagen is misspelled in the second line.

Also, being familiar with homemade pasta, I’d like to add a type that has been overlooked:

The pasta starts out with a gentle curve, almost flat, but becomes bent in cooking. It’s a feature of splicing together two different blends of pasta recipe and extruding them from a single pasta die. Each segment expands differently to temperature and moisture, and thus the sharp bend develops.

Please don’t ask for the recipe. It’s secret.

]]> By: Peter D. Tillman http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/02/model-vs-observation/#comment-186799 Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:29:28 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6454#comment-186799 Re: Steve McIntyre (#10),

http://data.climateaudit.org/data/models/models_vs_hadcru.pdf

Steve:
Could you please post a legend to your plot, either (pref.) there or here?

TIA, PT

]]> By: Ron Cram http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/02/model-vs-observation/#comment-186798 Sat, 04 Jul 2009 05:19:19 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6454#comment-186798 Re: Steve McIntyre (#10),

You say the Canadian GCM performed worse than others. True, but after looking at your pdf – most of the others did not do much better. All but five pretty seriously overpredicted warming as compared to adjusted temperatures of poorly sited stations.

Thanks again for a great blog!

]]> By: Estado del calentamiento global en junio 2009: 0,00ºC « PlazaMoyua.org http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/02/model-vs-observation/#comment-186797 Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:44:42 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6454#comment-186797 [...] Rahmsmoothing and the Canadian GCM [...]

]]> By: Steve McIntyre http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/02/model-vs-observation/#comment-186796 Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:20:02 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6454#comment-186796 Re: Antonio San (#25), Yep

]]> By: Steve McIntyre http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/02/model-vs-observation/#comment-186795 Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:19:42 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6454#comment-186795 I’ve edited the function – commenting out some steps in the function that aren’t used. I had set values for these variables in my console session – that’s why the execute differed. I’ve placed a script at http://www.climateaudit.org/scripts/rahmstorf/CA_post.txt

]]> By: Steve McIntyre http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/02/model-vs-observation/#comment-186794 Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:32:06 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6454#comment-186794 Re: FrancisT (#23),

sorry bout that, I must have slightly different copies on my computer and online. I’ll tidy this up.

]]>