Monday, May 12, 2008


To be honest, Eli can accept people becoming a bit short with him, after all, he can be a mighty snarky bunny. OTOH Roger and his act like a two year old act and then do the whining for control bit has managed to light James Annan's fuse.

Yet, to answer but another question, if we look at ye old 1988 Hansen graph, you know, the one that got the 1998 El Nino right, we see between 1973 and 1984 a flat eleven year period in Scenario B

So what more do the denialists want, good predictions of El Nino, flat decades and more out of a twenty year old model that you can run on a PC.


Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse enlightens you with:

Koutsoyiannis, D., N. Mamassis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, and S.M. Papalexiou, Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series, European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2008, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 10, Vienna, 09074, European Geosciences Union, 2008.

• However, model outputs at annual and climatic (30‐year) scales are irrelevant withreality; also, they do not reproduce the natural overyear fluctuation and, generally, underestimate the variance and the Hurst coefficient of the observed series; none of the models proves to be systematically better than the others.
• The huge negative values of coefficients of efficiency at those scales show that model predictions are much poorer that an elementary prediction based on the time average.
• This makes future climate projections not credible.
• The GCM outputs of AR4, as compared to those of TAR, are a regression in terms of the elements of falsifiability they provide, because most of the AR4 scenarios refer only to the future, whereas TAR scenarios also included historical periods.

Anonymous said...


Been there. Dunit and I raise you RC's Gavin. Beware of Greeks bearing... well u know. This Trojan horse swiftboat was flicked of the situation board by THE MAN.

[Response: With all due respect to the authors, they do not appear know very much about either TAR or AR4. Looking at the statistics of local temperature and precipitation is useful but picking just a few long records and comparing to the nearest individual grid cells is not sensible. The differences in topography an local micro-climates are probably large and will make a big difference. A better approach would have been to look at aggregated statistics over larger areas. This has in fact been done though - for instance Blender and Fraedrich (2003), and there was a recent paper that looked the AR4 models (in GRL maybe? - I can’t quickly find the reference). The most curious aspect of this paper’s reception in the blogosphere is that the authors use the surface station records which in all other circumstances the cheer squad would be condemning as being horribly contaminated. Just saying. - gavin]

Now look embarrasssed. Thank you.

Magnus said...

Kaninen, the link to James is broken.

EliRabett said...

Thanks Magnus, taken care of

Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse says:

Gavin and his mates debate between themselves and then declare their victory.

The models don't agree with any of 8 separate locations.

Why don't you actually engage with the authors of the Paper?

Vincent said...

Oh so now RSS and UAH are more credible?

Anonymous said...

Eli, the trend over that period you refer to is more (or is it less?) than just "flat".

The trend is downward (gasp!)

Clearly the model must be wrong. Everyone knows that with increasing CO2, real temperatures don't remain flat (or slope downward!) for a decade or even more.

Dano said...

Everyone knows that with increasing CO2, real temperatures don't remain flat (or slope downward!) for a decade or even more.

I call bullsh!t.

Where are the denialist models that show this? The denialist equations? The denialist papers? Where are the quotes from 'everyone' that 'knows' this? Of the recent years in this period, which years are among the warmest?



Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse says:

The denialist thermometer says that temperature is flatlining. Even after all the false upward adjustments to the temperature records.

Poor Dano

David B. Benson said...

In freshman physics lab I built an up-side-down thermometer (block of parafin with drilled hole for mercury, hollow glass tube so the mercury level fell when the temperature rose).

I suppose every denialist needs one of those?

Anonymous said...

Where are the denialist... the denialist equations?


Me = MT^2