You can’t say that overall the rate of X is INCREASING if the additional data shows NO INCREASE in rate.

This is real basic: doesn’t matter how long term you want to take it, you can’t say a rate is increasing faster than you expected if the additional data doesn’t trend to an increase. Try it. Make up a data set with a trend. Add some data that do not show any trend (note: not no significant trend: no trend at all). See if you can make your rate of increase speed up.

Of just consult your trend fitting maths and see why it won’t work. Either way should convince you.

Okay, lets look at 1995-1996? FLAT!

Jeez, I think that the IPCC models predicted sea level rise that is lower than what is occurring today (even with the “Flatness” of the last couple of years). And its the actual data vs. what the model predicted when then said “faster than expected”. And I don’t think anyone at RC used what you are quoting as “Its worse than we thought a year ago” so that is a bit dishonest. Even more so when the RC folks where commenting on the findings of the Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Climate Congress.

Regardless though, you should not draw conclusions based on something that is not statistically meaningful. Well, at least I would think you shouldn’t from a scientific stand point, but hey, its been since my undergraduate days since I took statistics!

Really, is that so hard to understand?

Ben

You and Phil. are very amusing when you refuse to see the obvious.

Ok, the trend during the period Pielke identified was flat or negative, short as it was. The trends on the shorter periods marked by Phil. were positive.

The problem is, when realclimatescientists are screaming “it’s worse than we thought just a year ago”, and the data shows it’s not worse than it was a year ago, then trends of three years become worthy of note.

Really, is that so hard to understand? Was that not the point of Pielke’s article/post?

“And by the way, not one of the regions you defined as flat in your attempt to contradict Pielke appear to be actually be flat.”

But neither is the segment Pielke chose! That’s the whole point, something I mentioned above too. Calling a 2-3 year segment of a noisy data set as “flat” is ludicrous. I could cherry pick many different segments from that sea level data add a trend line and get it to be “flat” but its not meaningful at all.

It is shabby when the measurement of change being promoted is 3.2mm and the error is 3cm. In reality the error marghin is much greater than that as measuring to the top of a constantly moving target is problematic.

Tonyb

That might be the case if Pielke had not referred to the Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Congress and quoted RC: “So what does it say?” The “it” in this case obviously refers to the report, which contains the claim that observations have outstripped projections for some aspects of climate.

As for the “few years”, the reference is to the fourth IPCC report.

“I would have to side with Roger Pielke since the RC people have not posited a cause for metrics like temperature, sea level, and sea ice extent to level off or even change direction.”

But that’s not the issue. The issue is the accuracy of Pielke’s claims.

3 cm out of some 200,000,000,000 is not too shabby. If you believe it.

I agree with you that we should not look at short term sea level records.

Way back on 01 30 44 I posted up a pile of links showing sea levels back to the MWP. Levels rise and fall and currently they are doing very little-certainly not enough to warrant scaring everyone to death.

I also think that because of the complexity of taking sea level measurements the idea of a single global one is as bizarre as a single global temperature. It would help everyone if the satellites were more accurate than they currently are.

Tonyb

I pointed it out yesterday and it’s still there, including your comment to the originator(John H (08:09:56)) a few lines below encouraging him to keep screen shots, how you missed it I don’t know? I also pointed out yesterday that it’s rather pointless my pointing out an accusation if you leave my report of it on the board! Does he get a 24hr time out?

REPLY: Yes I sure did miss that, I was focusing on my reply. Fixed now. You got a 24 hour time out because you’ve been warned before. Again if you don’t like the policies here, nobody is forcing you to keep posting comments. – Anthony

I haven’t followed all the back and forth between you and Anthony on all this.

I’ve stated my opinions on the subject, that is all.

I’m leaving your latest post embargoed until Anthony decides what to do.

Phil, that’s a good point: it is hard to demonstrate a trend in a small subset of the total data se, simply because noise will overwhelm signal.

But on the same line of thinking, it makes it hard to say that the rate in seal level rise is INCREASING though, doesn’t it? Hm?

It doesn’t make it at all difficult if you look over a long enough period. If you look over too short a period where the noise overwhelms the signal, then yes, it makes it difficult. However, there is a very simple solution to this: Don’t look over too short a period! That is one of the major points re-iterated over and over again in the latest RealClimate post responding to Roger Pielke Sr.: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=692

Neither was the one chosen by Pielke, that’s the point, they are certainly comparable with his choice. He chose the ‘statistic’ not I. It amounts to saying that a staircase is flat because the treads are all flat!

Your point is?

That accusations of fraud and plagiarism on here are treated differently depending on who is being accused and despite Anthony’s promise to me that the posts accusing fraud would be dealt with, 24 hours later they’re still here. My recent post addressing this, which you’ve obviously seen based on your comment has mysteriously disappeared.

It’s not that we don’t take accusations against RC seriously, it’s that we have personally experienced that they have credibility.

If person x lies to me, then person y tells me x lied to them as well, I am inclined to believe person y’s description of the event.

Your point is?