Comments on: Rahmstorf 2007 Discredited

By: Niche Modeling » Possible Error in OHC?

Niche Modeling » Possible Error in OHC? — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:10:42 +0000

[...] Also given the known issues with this data set, it’s bizarre to see top bureaucrats and scientists like Wong/Steffen placing so much importance on the trajectory of OHC over a short run since 2000. This is reminiscent of the missplaced importance the Garnaut commission placed on the now discredited ‘worse than we thought’ finding of Rahmstorf and others, that he has admitted was an error. [...]

By: Niche Modeling » Briffa McIntyre tree-rings etc

Niche Modeling » Briffa McIntyre tree-rings etc — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:32:44 +0000

[...] like ‘whack-a-mole’ as soon as another speculative excess is uncovered, like the ‘its worse than we thought‘ excesses of Rahmstorf et al, another pops up in its place. While one could argue that there [...]

By: Niche Modeling » Errors Adding Up

Niche Modeling » Errors Adding Up — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 04:31:08 +0000

[...] I called Rahmstorf on the claim that ‘the climate is more sensitive than we thought’, based on his untested, mangled and misunderstood methodology before he subsequently recanted. [...]

By: Niche Modeling » Weekly Roundup

Niche Modeling » Weekly Roundup — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:17:58 +0000

[...] the Copenhagen conference report Figure 5, based on the now-discredited Rahmstorf et al 2007 paper, altered by Stefan Rahmstorf to enhance the impression of warming, and then misreported in [...]

By: Niche Modeling » Copenhagen Synthesis Report

Niche Modeling » Copenhagen Synthesis Report — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 23:43:02 +0000

[...] in Figure 3 so that global temperatures did not show the recent cooling, the reference to his (now throughly discredited) Rahsmtorf et al 2007 is not accurate, and the analysis is essentially [...]

By: TCO

TCO — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:57:41 +0000

I couldn't make head or tails of what the centering issue was. It's just crappy explanation. I mean how fucking hard is it to draw clear before and after pictures and put arrows pointing to exactly what changed? Same thing happened with the Briffa snip. I'm sure the cheering choir just laps it up…but then they are curs.

By: TCO

TCO — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:57:00 +0000

I couldn’t make head or tails of what the centering issue was. It’s just crappy explanation. I mean how fucking hard is it to draw clear before and after pictures and put arrows pointing to exactly what changed? Same thing happened with the Briffa snip. I’m sure the cheering choir just laps it up…but then they are curs.

By: davids99us

davids99us — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:46:12 +0000

The way I see it, there was uncertainty introduced in the “Rahm-centering”, and uncertainty in the end treatment, above the usual uncertainties associated with noisy data. These 'special' uncertainties were not appreciated or accounted for. The description you give is what we are assuming he did from the look of the graph.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:46:00 +0000

The way I see it, there was uncertainty introduced in the “Rahm-centering”, and uncertainty in the end treatment, above the usual uncertainties associated with noisy data. These ‘special’ uncertainties were not appreciated or accounted for. The description you give is what we are assuming he did from the look of the graph.

By: joelmcdade

joelmcdade — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:45:22 +0000

Dr. Stockwell, I'd like confirmation that I undersand the “Rahm-Centering” that Steve posted on recently. You are one of three I know of that has replicated R07 in full, so I thought I'd come here. I'm trying to wrap my head around it.So: 1) the smooth of model means and smooth of temps are computed. 2) the model smooth is truncated at 1990 and moved down to the model smooth so that in they are equal in 1990. 3) neither are re-normalized in any proportional way; the move up (or vice versa) is simply an arbitrary shift?Presumably the modelers strove for the best fit over the *entire* calibration period but as it happens, in 1990 temperature was running cool, at about -1 s.d. down from the model mean.After the arbitrarily shift up, going forward from 1990 temp will always be 1 s.d. too high?I am worried I have it wrong because, well, I can't believe they did this.TIA