Part 2 of Tamino Once Again Misleads His Disciples

Guest post by Bob Tisdale

This post is a continuation of my post Tamino Once Again Misleads His Followers, which was cross posted at WattsUpWithThat here. There Tamino’s disciples and his other followers, one a post author at SkepticalScience, have generally been repeating their same tired arguments.

The debate is about my short-term, ARGO-era graph of NODC Ocean Heat Content (OHC) data versus the GISS climate model projection. This discussion is nothing new. It began in with Tamino’s unjustified May 9, 2011 post here about my simple graph. My May 13, 2011 reply to Tamino is here, and it was cross posted at WUWT on the same day here. Lucia Liljegren of The Blackboard added to the discussion here.

A graph that’s similar to the one Tamino and his disciples think is fake is shown in Figure 1. It’s similar but different, sort of a short-term OHC model-data comparison Modoki. We’ll get back to it.

Figure 1

First, let’s discuss…

THE BLATANTLY OBVIOUS ERROR IN TAMINO’S RECENT FAILED CRITIQUE

Tamino’s recent failed critique is titled Fake Predictions for Fake Skeptics. Some people have noted that a fake climate skeptic would be an anthropogenic global warming proponent, but we’ll move on from the implications of that.

Tamino linked to the NODC Ocean Heat Content webpage as the source of his data. There, the NODC provides a spreadsheet of their global OHC data (here). Tamino presents a few preliminary graphs and observes:

Note that there’s a decided hot fluctuation in 2003. So we’ll “predict” the time span 2003 to the present, based on data from 1993 to 2003.

His next graph (my Figure 2) is identified only with the heading of “Ocean heat content 0-700m”. It includes a linear trend that Tamino claims is “based on data from 1993 to 2003”. The length of the trend line is assumedly based on the same period as data. But the period of his trend line does not include the “decided hot fluctuation in 2003.”

Figure 2 (Tamino’s 3rdgraph)

Tamino’s next graph, my Figure 3, includes an extension of his linear trend. In addition to the heading, the graph identifies the red trend line as “fit 1993-2003”, but his “fit 1993-2003” still does not include the “decided hot fluctuation in 2003.”

Figure 3 (Tamino’s 4rdgraph)

In the paragraph after that graph, Tamino states:

We can see that observations don’t follow the prediction exactly — of course! The main difference is that during 2003, the observations were hotter than the prediction. For that time span at least, the oceans had more heat than predicted.

He reinforces that the 2003 data is warmer, yet he and his disciples fail to observe that the 2003 data is not included in his “fit 1993-2003”.

The NODC clearly marks their quarterly data in the spreadsheet they provide here. The Global OHC value at 2002-12 is 6.368768 [*10^22 Joules], and the value at 2003-12 is clearly marked 11.6546 [*10^22 Joules]. But the data included in Tamino’s trend does not include the 4thquarter 2003 data at 11.6546 [*10^22 Joules].

If you’re having trouble seeing that, Figure 4 is similar to Tamino’s graph with the hash marks included. It shows the trend based on the period of 1993 to 2002.

Figure 4

And Figure 5 gives you an idea what Tamino’s graph would look like if he had actually included 2003 data in his trend.

Figure 5

Animation 1 compares the two. (You may need to click on it to get the animation to work.)

Animation 1

How could Tamino and his disciples have missed such an obvious mistake? Some of you might even think it wasn’t a mistake on Tamino’s part, and that his disciples purposely overlooked that blatant error. I’m sure you’ll have a few comments about that.

HANSEN ET AL (2005) OFFSETS THE OHC DATA

A recent comment noted that the observations-based dataset in Hansen et al (2005) was not NODC OHC data, that it was the OHC data based on Willis et al (2004). I never stated that I was providing Willis et al (2004) data. My OHC update posts have always been about the NODC dataset.

My Figure 6 is Figure 2 from Hansen et al (2005). Note that the data starts at about zero watt-years/m^2 in 1993. And my Figure 7 is Figure 3 from Willis et al (2004). Note that the Willis et al data starts at -1 * 10^8 Joules/m^2 at 1993. Hansen et al converted the data, which is not in question since I’ve done the same thing, and Hansen et al have offset the data, which I have done also.

Figure 6

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Figure 7

Mysteriously, Hansen et al can shift the data without comment from Tamino, but when I do it, it’s interpreted by Tamino and his disciples, and by those from SkepticalScience, as a fake graph.

THE BEST WAY TO COMPARE THE MODELS TO THE OBSERVATIONS-BASED OHC DATA

Obviously, the best way to present the GISS Model-ER projection for Ocean Heat Content would be to use the actual GISS Model-ER data. The RealClimate annual model-data updates here and herepresent the Model-ER data. But the Model-ER OHC simulations are not available in an easy-to-use format like at the KNMI Climate Explorer. If it was available, all of this nonsense about my shifting data, my misrepresenting data, etc., would disappear. Why?

I have stated in comments at WUWT that I would use the ensemble mean of the Model-ER data and the NODC OHC observations for my future model-data comparisons. I’ve also stated I would use the base years of 1955-2010 to avoid the possibility of being accused of cherry-picking the base years.

Why? I presented this in a June 14, 2011post. And that post has been linked to all OHC updates since then.

Figure 8 is a graph from a 2008 presentation by Gavin Schmidt of GISS. It includes the OHC simulations of the Model-ER for the period of 1955 to 2010, which is the model data shown in the RealClimate model-data posts. It also includes the older version of the global NODC OHC data.

Figure 8

If we:

1. replicate the ensemble mean data of the GISS Model-ER,

2. replace the older NODC OHC data with the current version, and

3. use the base years of 1955-2010 so that no one can complain about cherry-picked base years,

Figure 9 would be a reasonable facsimile of the long-term comparison from 1955 to 2010. Notice where the ensemble mean of the GISS Model-ER intersects with the data near the ARGO era. Sure looks like 2003 to me. Figure 1 at the top of this post confirms how closely the GISS Model-ER would intersect with the NODC OHC data at 2003.

Figure 9

That graph in Figure 1 looks familiar, doesn’t it? It sure does look like the ARGO-era graphthat Tamino and his disciples dislike so much.

MY OFFER

In my January 28, 2012 at 6:18 pmcomment at the WUWT cross post I wrote the following:

I offered in a comment above to use the base years of 1955-2011 for my short-term ARGO-era model-data comparison. That way there can be no claims that I’ve cherry picked the base years or shifted the data inappropriately. I do not have the capability to process the GISS Model-ER OHC hindcast and projection data from the CMIP3 archive. So I cannot create the ensemble member mean of the global data, on a monthly basis, for the period of 1955 to present. But some of you do have that capability. You could end the debate.

If you choose to do so, please make available online for all who wish to use it the Global GISS Model-ER hindcast/projection ensemble member data on a monthly basis from 1955 to present, or as far into the future as you decide.

I will revise my recent OHC update and reuse that model data for future OHC updates. That way we don’t have to go through this every time I use that ARGO-era comparison graph as the initial graph in my OHC updates.

Fair enough?

Any takers?

CLOSING

I know the trend of the OHC data is not the model mean, but for those who are wondering what Tamino’s NODC OHC graph might have looked like if he had actually included the 1993 through 2003 data in his trend AND then compared it to the period of 2003 to 2011, refer to Figure 10.

Figure 10

And if he had lopped off the data before 2003, because it isn’t presented in the graph that he complains about so much, the result would look like Figure 11.

Figure 11

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Les Johnson

Ouch. Granted, that will leave a mark, and foster ill will with some operatic warmist…

Thanks, Anthony.

Kev-in-UK

Great post Bob, Sir!
And far more eloquently stated and ‘restrained’ than perhaps Tamino deserves….

Bob Tisdale said @ January 31, 2012 at 1:53 pm

Thanks, Anthony.

Thanks, Bob 🙂

Steve M. from TN

*pops popcorn* as I wait for the Tamino faithful to appear

LazyTeenager

He reinforces that the 2003 data is warmer, yet he and his disciples fail to observe that the 2003 data is not included in his “fit 1993-2003”.
—————–
Tamino is following a standard practice of using an inclusive-exclusive time range. In other words 1993-2003 should be interpreted as a time range beginning at the start of 1993 and ending at the start of 2003. In other words the range excludes the year 2003.
So Tamino made no mistake and his followers made the obvious interpretation without even noticing the mental effort required.
——————-
Tamino was making a point that it is not legitimate to exaggerate the difference between graph trends by introducing arbitrary vertical offsets or using reduced time ranges. Particularly if the reduced time range includes outliers.
Bob has missed the point and has gone off on a tangent of his own.

H.R.

I don’t get it, Bob. Your posts and explanations are clear enough for this dumb ol’ engineer and the couple of times in the past when I didn’t ‘get’ something, you clarified your point; once in a comment and once you actually edited your post for a clearer exposition.
Hang in there. All I’m seeing from the complaints of detractors is that they are trying to get you to make your point so clear (“How clear is it?”) that no one can see it any more!
Can I take a shot, Bob? (Here goes anyhow.)
See Figure (pick a Figure, any Figure, past several Tisdale posts). Note where the model trend does not match observations. Ask yourself, “What’s a reasonable conclusion when a model doesn’t match observations?”
Okay. Done.

tonyc

Another way to put this. 1993 to 2003 was used to build a prediction model. 2003 to present is data which can be used to test that prediction model. What is the R^2 of the predictors versus the observed during 2003-current?
I asked this at Tamino’s site but was moderated.

You’re a gem Bob. I never fail to learn something from your posts. Tamino getting involved is just the entertainment factor that makes learning fun.
School kids should have it so good.

Camburn

Tamino has no valid points of contention.
The folks who believe strongly in AGW are trying to mask the issue. Since 2003, there has been a growing divergence. They should be happy for the data splice in 2003. Imagine if XBT data had continued to be used?.Oh man……….the divergence would be so huge that you could drive a couple of Unit Trains through it instead of a Mack Truck.

NatJ

So a linear regression for the period of 1993-2003 leads to a very different interpretation than a linear regression for 1993-2002. Apparently one additional year makes a big difference. What does that say about the uncertainty of trends in short, noisy time series? Somehow this point doesn’t seem to sink in, so maybe this post can be a lesson for some. Sure, the 1993-2002 trend *by itself* is no more valid an estimate than the 1993-2003 trend, but we do have more data. A better estimate – the trend for the entire 1993-2011 period – happens to match the 1993-2002 trend pretty well in part because the 1993-2002 period does not start or end on any noticeable outliers. Clearly though, 10 years is not enough time to constrain the uncertainty in the OHC trend.

Just noticed the thread title:
“Part 2 of Tamino Once Again Misleads His Disciples”
Shouldn’t it read:
“Part 2 of the Continuing Saga of Tamino Misleading His Disciples”?
Just wonderin’.

Tamino’s site is all about agreement – it is impossible to serve kool aid to someone who only wants a tall cold glass of clear thinking…

Jeremy

LazyTeenager says:
January 31, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Tamino was making a point that it is not legitimate to exaggerate the difference between graph trends by introducing arbitrary vertical offsets or using reduced time ranges. Particularly if the reduced time range includes outliers.
Bob has missed the point and has gone off on a tangent of his own.

Bob was making the point that observations are not following the models. Tamino and his followers dislike this fact of life and decided to go off any make their own straw man.

JJ

LazyTeenager says:
Tamino was making a point that it is not legitimate to exaggerate the difference between graph trends by introducing arbitrary vertical offsets or using reduced time ranges.

Tamino’s point is inapplicable. The vertical offset is not an issue, unless the absolute magnitude of the divergence is the topic that the graph is intended to illustrate. It wasn’t. Bob spoke only of the comparison of slopes. His graph is appropriate for that discussion. It is not misleading.
Tamino’s post is misleading. He presents graphs that are only relevant to the discussion of the absolute magnitude of the divergence. That was not Bob’s point. Bob’s point was the comparison of slopes, and Tamino did not present the relevant slopes in his post. Doing so would have made Bob’s point, and Tamino’s irrelevant red herring, quite clear.
Grant Foster is smart enough that he doesn’t need to erect strawmen to conquer. It must be the overall deficiency of his position that causes him to do such things, huh?
OHC for the last ten years is proceeing on a much flatter trajectory than previously. And flatter than the model runs predict. That was, and remains, Bob’s point. He is absolutely correct about that, as this post and the two previous demonstrate. His question was, and remains, how much longer can this divergence persist before the model worshippers come down from the hill and perform the virual equivalent of the “Great Disappointment” response? It is a good question. You guys should answer it, rather than trying to distract from it.
Because when you attempt to distract from it, as Tamino has done here, you end up doing two things: 1) You look desperate, grasping at straws from which to construct sparring partners, and 2) you end up forcing guys like Bob into examining things that don’t turn out well for you. In his original post, he was not talking about the absolute magnitude of the OHC divergence, only the slopes. Off topic complaints forced him to address the former, and look what he found: Fig 9 above shows that in addition to being way off predicted slope for the last 10 years, the absolute value of the OHC has been below model predicted values for the last 15 years.
Add that to Bob’s question above.

Mark T

Thanks, JJ. I was ready to point out the obvious strawman (offsets are irrelevant when comparing trends – indeed, starting both at the same point is the only way that even makes sense) and you beat me to it. As for the silly inclusive/exclusive argument: it does not support any “defense” when one point makes that much of a difference. Duh.
Mark

Hi Everyone!
If Open Mind allowed for comments to discuss/debate articles from that site, WUWT probably wouldn’t have to publish an article to provide a dissenting view.
But there it is.
Open Mind and other Pro-CAGW sites just don’t allow for intelligent discourse and proper debating.
So be it.
The thing that gets me is, is that WUWT allows for such types of discussions(mind you civil), giving rise to dissenting Con-CAGW views, yet these posters defend websites that censor.
Period.
So, those of you that support those websites and/or their views, why don’t you go to those websites and ask/demand they show the same courtesy and transparency.
Otherwise, your opinions here are but a tool to muddy the waters.
If you support CAGW and comment here to defend your right to free speech and do nothing about the censorship from other websites, you should be ashamed of yourself.
You want to be heard.
We want to be heard.
You want freedom and change.
We want freedom and change.
The next time you feel obliged to speak your mind here, remember this:
Skeptics don’t have that same freedom.
You call us deniers to our face and behind our backs.
For years you laughed and ridiculed skepticism.
Now that a growing majority don’t believe in CAGW or their views, you come here and mock the process, knowing we don’t have the same privilege.
You want us to respect your opinion, demand open discourse from you trusted friends at Real Climate and Open Mind and the like.
But until then, you are but a tool of the worst sort.

Mark T

Unfortunately, those that agree with closing debate do not care whether you respect their opinion. They are interested only in whether you accept it (agreement is not even necessary) along with the consequences and, ultimately, are willing to use force should you refuse. It is, and always has been, about control.
Mark

Peter

The problem is still this “ARGO-era” concept. If I understand what Bob is saying, it’s something like this: in the 4th quarter of 2002, only 49% of the readings were from ARGO buoys, so that data is garbage and we ignore it. But in the 1st quarter of 2003, 51% of readings were from ARGO buoys, so that data is good and we start tracking ocean temperatures from there. To me that raises lots of questions. What is it about the ARGO readings that make them “better” than the old sources? If “better” just means greater accuracy, why does that mean the older data is garbage? (To make an analogy, it’s not like the technology went from sundials to atomic clocks overnight. A thermometer in 2002 was not that different than one in 2003.) And how do you address the fact that much of your 2003-present data is “contaminated” with data from these low-quality older data sources? It looks like Bob is deliberately choosing a starting point that happens to best make his argument (that ocean temperatures aren’t rising). It looks like he is starting with the graph he wants to show and is choosing the data to show that graph. This “ARGO-era” stuff is a mighty thin justification for what he is doing to these graphs. I’m just saying that’s how it looks.

JJ

Peter says:
It looks like Bob is deliberately choosing a starting point that happens to best make his argument (that ocean temperatures aren’t rising). It looks like he is starting with the graph he wants to show and is choosing the data to show that graph. This “ARGO-era” stuff is a mighty thin justification for what he is doing to these graphs. I’m just saying that’s how it looks.

For the sake of discussion, assume that is true. It remains that for the last 10 years the slope of the model prediction is way off the slope of the observations. Also, for the last 15 years the observations are below the model prediction, and the disparity is growing wider faster more recently. How long can this persist, before the Modelites reinterpret the ETA of the Second Coming of the Heat?

Evan Thomas

Here in the Great South Land as many of your observant readers will know, except for Andrew Bolt there is vitally no media discussion of the great debate between the warmists and the contrarians. However an interesting wild card has recently been dealt. Gina Reinhardt, one of the worlds richest women has bought a swag of shares in the media group Fairfax
(publishers of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age, both very warmist). This will enable Mrs Reinhardt, a vehement contrarian, to obtain a seat on the board. Her influence on the board of Chanel 10 TV got Andrew Bolt a half hour current affairs program. Cheers from a soggy Downunder.

David A. Evans

Sorry Bob.
I don’t mean to detract from your efforts but surely, you’ve already spent too much time on this idiot Foster!
I think most reasonable people can see that aligning in the y axis can give a different perspective, it’s a trademark of their con!
Get back to explaining ENSO, the PDO & suchlike!

LazyTeenager says: “Tamino is following a standard practice of using an inclusive-exclusive time range. In other words 1993-2003 should be interpreted as a time range beginning at the start of 1993 and ending at the start of 2003. In other words the range excludes the year 2003.”
I have to admit, LazyTeenager, that was pretty creative. That was your best attempt to misdirect yet.
Now, if “inclusive-exclusive time range” is “standard practice”, why is it when I Google “inclusive-exclusive time range” in quotes, I get only one return, and that return is your use of it on this thread?
When someone lists start and end years of a dataset or subset, they’re stating that it includes all of the data during that period.

Peter says: “The problem is still this “ARGO-era” concept. If I understand what Bob is saying, it’s something like this: in the 4th quarter of 2002, only 49% of the readings were from ARGO buoys…”
Please quote chapter and verse where I have ever stated or inferred something to that effect. You’re reaching.

David A. Evans

Peter says.
Well sort of peter, except that before ARGO, we weren’t really looking at ocean temps, therefore, not looking at the largest energy sink on Earth!
Try telling me atmospheric temps are significant now!
DaveE.

JJ: Thanks for your January 31, 2012 at 3:38 pm comment. Would you mind if I posted it at my blog as a “quote of the month”?

Rex

Lazy Teenager sez:
>> Tamino is following a standard practice of using an inclusive-exclusive
>> time range. In other words 1993-2003 should be interpreted as a time
>> range beginning at the start of 1993 and ending at the start of 2003. In
>> other words the range excludes the year 2003.
What “standard practice” ??? Never heard of it.

NatJ says: “So a linear regression for the period of 1993-2003 leads to a very different interpretation than a linear regression for 1993-2002. Apparently one additional year makes a big difference. What does that say about the uncertainty of trends in short, noisy time series?”
As far as I can tell, Tamino’s concern is not the slope of the line. His concern is and has been where my model trend intersects with the observations. The difference in the trends between the periods of 1993-2002 and 1993-2003 is not that large. But it impacts his presentation and his complaint about where the model intersects with the data.

Babsy

H.R. says:
January 31, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Ask yourself, “What’s a reasonable conclusion when a model doesn’t match observations?”
OK, I’ll bite. Useless?
🙂

JJ

Bob,
Quote of the month? I’m honored.
Wow. I’ve never won anything before. I feel I should thank the Academy or something.

Carrick Talmadge

Bob:

Mysteriously, Hansen et al can shift the data without comment from Tamino, but when I do it, it’s interpreted by Tamino and his disciples, and by those from SkepticalScience, as a fake graph.

Tamino can also project forward the models without comment from Nick Stokes and crowd too. When you do it, however, it’s an error.
Lazy: “Tamino is following a standard practice of using an inclusive-exclusive time range”.
I think you just made that up. I found exactly one hit for it on google, to your comment.
/rolls eyes

David A. Evans says: “Get back to explaining ENSO, the PDO & suchlike!”
I’ve been writing about ENSO for most of the day. This is just a distraction.

H.R.

@Babsy says:
January 31, 2012 at 5:32 pm
H.R. says:
January 31, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Ask yourself, “What’s a reasonable conclusion when a model doesn’t match observations?”
OK, I’ll bite. Useless?
🙂
========================================================================
LOL! I hadn’t thought of that answer as a particular. I was thinking “Wrong!” and” Do- over!”
I have been following Bob’s posts here and at his blog and he can only be described as courteous and thorough. He can be a little “cloudy” at times but all you have to do is ask! Bob will do his best to clarify. I just got a little PO’d (and mischievious) by the nitpicking that took advantage of his very professional and good nature and had to jump in. Like any good punchline, your response was a hoot; deadpan, unexpected, and pttttt…. right on point.
Made my day!
(P.S. Bob’s posts are always a good addition to any day. Do I sound like a Tisdale groupie? Naahhh… I’m not, but I really like, and learn, from his posts.)

Rosco

When SkepticalScience criticize you you know you’re on the right path – they’re an evil little nest of vipers.

crosspatch

I wouldn’t worry too much about what Tamino publishes, nobody else does. Seriously. He is so completely discredited as nothing more than an alarmist shill that he is completely predictable in his position on any question that might come up. He simply tunes for maximum warming and lets it rip. It’s so simple even a caveman could do it.

Maus

Bob: “When someone lists start and end years of a dataset or subset, they’re stating that it includes all of the data during that period.”
I backed you last time and I’ll back LazyTeenager this one. Ranges in this manner are commonly either [1993,2003] or [1993,2003). Which to use is largely not relevant and a matter of taste. And while I do think the inclusive range [1993,2003] is certainly more common overall I would not go so far to claim that it isn’t used *at* all. Charitably, LT has a point that is valid under one interpretation.
That said, if we grant the point that Tamino meant [1993,2003) then he cherry-picked *out* the date that he’s scolding you as having cherry-picked *in*. In which case we can be certain that LT acknowledges that Tamino is as out of line as yourself.

Bill Illis

We should make a point that 1.0 W/m2/year across the entire oceans on the Earth is 1.13 X10^22 joules. There is too much obfuscation by working back and forth between the W/m2 and joules/m2/year. 1.13 joules should be committed to memory if you want to work on OHC.
Hansen 2005 jerks around back and forth between saying the imbalance is 0.6 W/m2/year and 0.85 W/m2/year. It seems that he meant the imbalance should be 0.85 W/m2/year, that the oceans are absorbing something close to this.
So that should then translate into 0.96 X10^22 joules/m2/year of OHC rise.
From 1993 to 2011, the OHC should have increased by 18 years times 0.96 X10^22 joules/m2 or around 17 X10^22 joules/m2.
How much did it increase? About 10 (even including the unexplainable 2.5 step increase during 2002).
So yeah, Hansen is way off and Tamino should be reprimanded with a thick metre-stick like the Nuns used to do.

Babsy

H.R. says:
January 31, 2012 at 6:24 pm
I am amazed at the warmists’ attachment to their models. Absolutely amazed.

Pamela Gray

The “standard practice” is to be clear. As in “1990 – 2012 inclusive”, or “1990 – 2012 exclusive”. Let’s not be too lazy to be clear. K?

corporate message

Bob Tisdale said:
“LazyTeenager says: ‘Tamino is following a standard practice of using an inclusive-exclusive time range. In other words 1993-2003 should be interpreted as a time range beginning at the start of 1993 and ending at the start of 2003. In other words the range excludes the year 2003.’
I have to admit, LazyTeenager, that was pretty creative. That was your best attempt to misdirect yet.”
Bob, I’m on the fence one this one.
Lazy Teenagere, I take it, would, using “the standard” when describing the date of data from 1955, say the data is from the period 1955-1956 – whereas others might say it’s from 1955.
Is there a difference in kind when describing some data vs describing a time span the data was taken from ? Is a difference created if the data comes in quarterly vs all at once per year…therefore “spanning” the period” ?

dp

So after all these pages with pictures and graphs with a description on the back of each one we reaffirm a decade old guess by a crazy guy is still wrong, and Tamino lacks integrity. Can we bury this now? It is not science.
Join in the singing when it comes around again. Here it comes…

Bob,
I think your Fig 8 is the place to look for a model/OHC comparison. The runs were designed for that purpose, and you can easily add the recent years obs. Gavin’s presentation is here.
Their runs were to investigate the effect of ocean model on the calcs, and show they used Russell, which runs hot here, and Hycom, which runs cold. You’ve chosen to emphasise the Russell model, but their purpose was to investigate the range of uncertainty. The Hycom model (EH) was running cooler since 1990, but is about right now.
There is obvious short term variability which the models run in projection mode (with forcing scenarios) are not capturing. That is not surprising. They are trying to resolve the longer term trend disparity between the two models.

Maus said:

I backed you last time and I’ll back LazyTeenager this one. Ranges in this manner are commonly either [1993,2003] or [1993,2003). Which to use is largely not relevant and a matter of taste. And while I do think the inclusive range [1993,2003] is certainly more common overall I would not go so far to claim that it isn’t used *at* all. Charitably, LT has a point that is valid under one interpretation.

“[1993,2003)” is called a half-open range, and they are very common in some environments, significantly programming and some mathematics. But the names of the endpoints (here “1993” and “2003”) in that circumstance are always names of a single value point, not the name of a range of values. The number of a year names the entire 12 months of the year. A half-open range might be passable if it were presented as “1/1/1993 to 1/1/2003”, but just with the year numbers it must certainly be written out more clearly, for example “1993 to but excluding 2003”, or “1993 through 2002”.

Peter

If you can’t justify why we should ignore the data from prior to 2003, then you are cherry picking data. That is exactly the point. In science you try to look at all the data you can – at least that’s what I was taught. This analysis is based on a subset of data cherry picked out of a larger data set.
JJ, with respect to your point, you are correct – the slope is much less if you use 2003 as a start year. And it might be more if I use 2001 as a start year. Or less if I use 2010 as the start year. It would be a huge slope if I just looked at 2Q11 to 3Q11!!! I can pick any start period and any end period I want and come up with a different slope. What makes that different than this analysis from Mr. Tisdale? The point is, we have lots of data on OHC, so why would one choose to ignore a large part of your data set? Perhaps it is because you doubt the veracity of data that doesn’t fit your preconceived notion of what the data should say.

Maus

Ron House: ““[1993,2003)” is called a half-open range, and they are very common in some environments, significantly programming and some mathematics.”
Just so, and I appreciate the assist. But surely you’re not claiming that mathematics and programming have anything to do with the CC debate?

LazyTeenager says: “Tamino is following a standard practice of using an inclusive-exclusive time range. In other words 1993-2003 should be interpreted as a time range beginning at the start of 1993 and ending at the start of 2003. In other words the range excludes the year 2003.”
LazyTeenager is right – it IS standard practice for climate scientists to include/exclude certain dates. They’ll add or delete data that will “hide the decline”, graft on the temp data to almost any chart they can, and simply refuse to discuss any divergence that results from use of the full data.

dp

Peter – what happens if you pick slopes of 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17 years – all randomly picked out of the blue sky prime numbers, of course. Overlay them on the graph using observed data and you get a curve. Do that long enough and you will have a history. The advantage is you get to see lots of start years. Try to project that or any one of them into the future and you have fiction. The lesson we learn from all this is projecting into the future is futile and in the worst case will cause you to claim turnpikes on the Atlantic seaboard will disappear under the waves in our lifetimes. FAIL!
Models are wrong, observations are right. Subject to the Mann Normalization method, of course, but today and all yesterdays are worth bumpkis regarding what the next 10,000 tomorrows will be like.
My point is Bob can pick from dozens of models and they’re all going to diverge. Climate models applied long term are the man behind the curtain – pay him no mind.

Alex Heyworth

I’m beginning to wonder if “Grant Foster” is just another case of nominative determinism.

noaaprogrammer

To continue JJ’s and others’ analogies: Once they realize that the heating time is delayed, they will predict another era during which it will come; or some will say that the heating isn’t taking place on this earth, but somewhere else in the heavens, (which is more believable).

Caleb

RE: Lazy Teenager: “Tamino is following a standard practice of using an inclusive-exclusive time range.”
Is that all he was doing? Gosh! I thought he was attempting to show that malfunctioning models were not actually malfunctioning.
I love the way these fellows tinker with models after-the-fact to “fix” them.
If they were selling me a new car, and I pointed out the odometer read 9,000 miles, they would tinker with the odometer until it read zero. Then they would smile and brightly state, “There! All fixed! It is new again!”