Changing the anomaly period in this sense simply moves all curves up or down by an equal amount.

I think AR4 Fig 6.13. is an exemption. If all the curves are moved by equal amount, then the coloring should stay the same. Here’s 6.10.c:

and 6.13.d:

It is interesting that the reconstruction ensemble gets more accurate for 1500-1899 in the latter. I don’t have the raw data, http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/datapages/ipccar4.htm has only ‘as plotted’-version, so I cannot YouTube this.

Rahmstorf changed the filter on the fly:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/01/opportunism-and-the-models/

Met Office had some problems:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/smoothing.html

In March 2008, some diagrams were placed on this web site which showed smoothed annual series that included data for 2008. The annual value for 2008 was based on the only two months of data – January and February – that were available at the time. January and February 2008 were cooler than recent months, leading to a marked downturn towards the end of the smoothed series (Figure 2, orange line) that caused much discussion.

Sounds like a marketing campaign to me, Mosher. I would judge that looking more critically at reconstructions would simply begin with looking at the divergence problem in dendro and non dendro reconstructions – and without a major cost to bring the initial proxy sites up to date. A second phase would be to do reconstructions using a prior criteria, based on reasonable science, for selecting proxies and then reporting the results without any posterior eliminations. And of course this assumes the methodology limitations of doing reconstructions are well acknowledged.

I do not judge that doing paleo better is a so much a matter of funds but rather of a lack of unbiased approaches to the analysis. I suspect that funds for paleo would go to the currently prominent scientists in the field who would in turn limit the studies to attempts to show that divergence was of an anthropogenic source.

By the way with regards to that video you linked in the post: I believe that climate models have a better chance of getting it right eventually than economic models. Climate models can be based on physics while economic models are based on assumptions that attempt to make human actions as predictable as established physics.

UC — The calibration period and the anomaly period are different critters. CCE, ICE, and CPS all give the same mean as the instrumental data over the calibration period. Usually the instrumental data is given as an anomaly relative to its mean during a recent 30-year period, so it will have zero mean during this period, but then even though the reconstruction is to be interpreted relative throughout relative to this reference period, it will not have zero mean during the reference period. Changing the anomaly period in this sense simply moves all curves up or down by an equal amount.

Got it, good point. I was a bit distracted by 0183.txt

we used the ’61-90 base period for the absolute anomaly scale, but
we aligned the series based on an earlier (’31-60) interval of the
instrumental record, which pre-dates (largely) the recent decline in the
Briffa et al series

The 30 year alignment is a bit short, but the video is for illustrative purposes only

ps. Take a look at the AR4 Fig 6.10 c and compare with 6.13.d. It seems that reconstructions are shown as most accurate (more ‘scoring’) during 1880-1960 in the former and 1450-1900 in the latter. Is it due to different centering period?

De novo readers should start with:

http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/07/eric-steigs-trick/

a de novo version, but still showing “a bit of history”.

There’s also this other post:

http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/13/steig-and-the-knuckleheaded-reviewers/

And there are other bits of history elsewhere.

By chance we have this de novo concept.

Unfortunately, elsewhere, there are groups like electric power authorities with teams working 24/7 to maximise investment opportunities. These are likely to be close to optimum because the demonstration of realised profit now is a powerful motivator.

OTOH, the pie in the sky modelling at Potsdam does not follow the same course that power authorities would follow if unhindered. Instead, we are told that the precautionary principle should be the main God to guide us, then profit in the bank will follow.

The precautionary principle, as many examples have shown, is usually a way to disguise unfinished work especially when the outcome starts to diverge from the salivating response that was expected.

Unfortunate incidents like the failure to find the predicted tropical tropospheric hot spot, Trenberth’s missing heat, the almost constant global temperature for the last 2 decades, the constancy of recent ocean heat content, Envirosat and Topex 2 showing ocean levels are now falling – inconveniences such as these are glossed over, and not adequately taken into the PIK economic modelling as described by Held. To him, a sensitivity analysis seems to end with a recommendation on when to invoke the precautionary principle, the sooner the better, wink, wink, because the climate sure as hell ain’t following doomsday obediently enough to scare the peasants and the longer the P.P. is delayed, the more the climate has a chance to diverge from models.

It is shameful that educated economists are taken in by this tripe. Held does not even seem to recognise that the large scale adoption of wind and solar cannot be done without parallel expansion of spinning reserve, such as gas turbine generation. He’s one of the old school who thought that enough windmills would almost always turn enough on average to negate the need for base load. That’s the type of major equation that PIK should be examining, not pseudo science mixed with economics dressed up in a way to con bankers and insurers.

Now, Germany is in deep economic trouble. It is a 50:50 as to whether it will go into deep recession and take a lot of Europe with it. It would be trite to say that this has happened because the German economic planners believe the PIK muddle and are implementing it. We’ve seen Angela Merkel wipe nuclear off the slate. That could be the single, dominant move that plunges Europe into recession. I say, let’s sit back and see and not offer them a cent in bailouts.

ROTFL when you hear the dictum “Uncertainty Under learning”, an aphorism for “We reserve the right to change future figures without explanation or apology when things fail” – as they will. Stupid PIKS.

I have been assured by a Mr Chandrasekhar of PAGES, that they have a completely open policy regarding data.

Which presumably means Raphael Neukom is subverting his agreement with them in some way.

Steve: why don’t you ask Mr Chandrasekhar to inquire into the matter?