Attracting more attention!

For those who want to download only a few files, the IPCC themselves have posted the data from the models used to create the A2 sres here. The trend computed the years from 2000-2010 is not 0.12 C/decade. Very not.

 

EDIT:  This post should be in Chat.  Sorry!

dana,

This relates to comment #25 from: http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-ipcc-ar4.html#comments

I don't deal with anything as complicated as data, so I'm not sticking my oar in.

The questioner is Lucia, so it's probably worthwhile to deal with that carefully.

Zeke left a comment.  He's trustworthy.  I'll fix his link and thank him.

The criticism now is that the graph uses GISTEMP and not the mean of the 3 data sets against the mean of the models.  Cherry-picking accusation.

If appropriate, and I stress IF because I'm not sure, just run the models 95% error bars with all 3 temp records.  Just like RC did.  These people are such harpies.   The damn chart was just supposed to show something very simple, which actually doesn't even matter for another ten years anyway!

It's apparent that this isn't stopping anytime soon.  

Watch out for Lucia, she is angry and aggressive.  She was trying to tell Neven how to do stuff.  Note though-- she stays away from Tamino's site, so she is just smart enough to cause trouble, but not smart enough to go up against a real statistican.

I would suggest speaking to Tamino is things get heated.

If they want to get pendantic, there are actually four records if one includes JMA.

If Lucia gets aggro, let her but don't respond in kind. It's imperative we keep our temper and handle these kinds of events with grace and dispassionate temper.

The problem here is what running average you use.  You used one for the model, but not the data, which makes this not an apples to apples comparison.  I downloaded bccr bcm2_0 and ran a centered 11-year running average for the decade in question, the trend is about 0.14˚C/decade.

Without that smoothing you get a negative trend.

What you ought to do is either publish a graph with a smooting function applied to both the actual temperature and models, or one without a smooting function and then just plot trend from raw data.  Due to internal variability the latter will tell us nothing relevant, but that was, of course, the whole point of those inclusive paragraphs.

FWIW that is only one model, you should do it for all and the ensemble mean.

Lucia the Fly is buzzing angrily away at dana as we speak...

It's too short of a timeframe to say anything very interesting anyway.  Really I only did this post to round out the series, since I previously did the FAR, SAR, and TAR.  I used GISTEMP because it's a full global data set.  If she wants to squawk about that, let her.  These are just very simple comparisons to see if the average projection is roughly in line with the observational data (which, for example, Easterbook's is clearly not).

Dana,

Well handled.  If there was an error, correct it and move on.  The changes do not seem to have altered your central thesis, correct?

It is fascinating that SkS is getting so much scrutiny from the denier set.

"It is fascinating that SkS is getting so much scrutiny from the denier set."

We must be really getting under their skin!

Alby - correct, it's a pretty minor change.  It changed the model mean trend from 0.12°C to 0.18°C from 2000 to 2010 - basically 0.3°C higher than the observed trend as opposed to 0.3°C lower.  But either way, it's too short of a timeframe to say anything meaningful, though the change did give me the opportunity to link to Rob P's Kaufmann post (since the reduced trend is probably mostly due to aerosols).

I'm actually glad for the update, because in this case the digitization wasn't accurate, and I'm going to put this in my book, so I'd prefer it be reasonably correct.  I just hope lucia doesn't harp too much.  She'll probably write a blog post about what a dolt I am or something :-)  The increased scrutiny just means we're having more of an impact - good news!

Huh,  she says that she is weilling to believe you and then goes on to try and insinuate that you should have known that something was wrong but that you forged ahead regardless.  That is implying dishonesty and/or incompetance.  It is innuendo, and i would not be surprsied if she has a post along those lines soon.   For crying out loud he made a mistake, he accepted that he erred and then he fixed it with lightning speed-- what more do they want? Oh right, blood....

Did you mean to say 0.03C/decade?  A didfference of 0.3 C sounds too high...

Could someone please politely deal with her innuendo in that comment. I can't i'm waaay to crabby tonight

Dana:  Check your mail box, we have some feedback.

Yeah Alby, I meant 0.03°C.  It's been a long day :-)

Lucia is definitely getting very shrill.  I posted another comment politely asking her to tone it down.  Mods will have to keep an eye on her.

Haven't got the email yet, Alby.

Well, I think SkS can congratulate itself for officially making waves in the denier community.  

It means SkS is doing a good job.  

"It is innuendo, and i would not be surprsied if she has a post along those lines soon"

Wow I am two for two on predictions.....bloody ridiculous and juvenile and a cheap shot to boot.  Honestly, this is a game for them isn't it....

No worries Dana.  Don't stay up too late.  Glad you got the email.

This part of the rough & tumble: No point in being thin-skinned about it.

I notice that we are often concerned about their cherry-picking. It is not surprising that they have the same concern.

" I notice that we are often concerned about their cherry-picking. It is not surprising that they have the same concern."

Imitation is the best form of flattery.