Peter Lang,

I did do my own research. When I looked at Roy Spencer’s graph I noticed a few things were awry, so I looked them up. The second thing I noticed that the UAH lower troposphere and HadCRUT4 diverged from each other radically after 1983 in this plot when in reality they track each other pretty well.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1983/to:2102/offset:-0.26/plot/uah/from:1983/to:2012

So obviously there was something fishy going on in Roy’s plot. The first thing I noticed was that the y axis was based on a 5 year period from 1979-1983, when every other temperature comparison uses a much longer base period. That got me thinking, why was this particular period used?

When I plotted the comparison, it was obvious. Over the 1979-1983 period, UAH trends to track higher than HadCRUT4 often by 0.1 to 0.2 degrees.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:1983/offset:-0.26/plot/uah/from:1979/to:1983/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:1983/offset:-0.35

Oh dear, what a fudged. What using this period does as a baseline does is make the apparent temperature increase over the period lower than it should be for UAH.

The third thing I noticed was that the model plots all started at 0 in 1983. If you look at the ensemble in the AR5 report they don’t do this. The only way this could have occurred would be for someone to run the models with a starting period of 1983. Using the UAH 1979-1983 as the starting data for the models would make them all over-estimate future temperature by about 0.1 degree. So not only has Roy fudged the data for the UAH temperature to be lower than it really is, he has fudged the models to be higher than they should be. No wonder hardly any of the models fit the data.

This fraud was easily determined with a modicum of knowledge of climate science and an ability to read graphs. The fact that you and Don were unable to detect this, merely illustrates how poorly you understand the science. Given the poor state of your knowledge, any recommendations from you about what websites to read are simply useless.

Agronomist,

First, you haven't bothered reading the links I gave you, so I am not interested in wasting my time discussing your interpretation of a chart.

Second, I don't see any point in me looking seriously at your work. If Roy Spencer has errors, why don't you write to him and point them out to him? I suspect you'd find it is you that misunderstand or is making the errors. After all, he is highly competent and you are not. That's not to say he could not have made a mistake, but it is much more likely that you have. If he has made a mistake, and others find it and point it out, it will be debated and if it is shown to be an error he will correct it. That's how scientists, with integrity, which he undoubtedly has, work.

Thirdly, there are many charts showing the same message - i.e. that the models' temperature projections are too high. The discussion has been going on for months.

Since we have no respect for each other, we may as well leave it at that.

"OK, Where?"

Here spindoc, where you carry on with the royal "we" as if everyone apart from you is incapable of analytical thought. Perhaps I pegged you wrong as I was posted on my way out today, and it's the nice spindoc I'm dealing with.

I come back to the credibility and of assumptions of the NIPCC and its forecasts/projections/predictions, even if it is predicting there is nothing at all to be concerned about going forward.

Firstly, I am so sorry, but I can't take the NIPCC itself seriously http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/

or its lead authors:
Bob Carter http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bob_Carter
Fred Singer http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fred_Singer
Craig Idso http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Craig_Idso

or Judith Curry http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judith_Curry

Insofar as any of them want to put up their arguments against "the consensus" they can do so on reputable peer reviewed journals and argue it out based on the empirical evidence, as can you spindoc, and as can Peter Lang. Once you're published, and that will require you to be original and demonstration of having considered all, not just what you cherry-pick, post us a link so we can follow the ensuing discussion.

If you're not up to publishing why not, just for the intellectual joust, put up at RealClimate or SkepticalScience etc., where you know you'll find informed argument, or, just read the already prepared responses to your tired second-hand lines that are waiting there?

I will finish by saying I do not believe you have any vested interest in maintaining your viewpoint, whilst I assure you nor do I. Also common between us is that I hope I'm wrong, and so do you.

A piece from the devil (Michael Mann), mentioning the NIPCC: http://www.livescience.com/39957-climate-change-deniers-must-stop-distorting-the-evidence.html

Agro, what a little bully you are; leave Peter alone; unlike the alarmists Spencer learns and has republished his graph after dealing with the problems you so alertly have noticed:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

You will notice little man that in this updated graph both the useless models and both the satellites, not just UAH, now intersect at 1979 when the satellites began.

It makes no difference; the models are still shot wherever you begin; the 15+ years pause in temperature has blown them out of the water.

Spencer had done the graph beginning in 1979 in an earlier post as well:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/

Now Agro do tell us how wonderful the models are; I really enjoy listening to and reading those who have an ideological mindset.

Dear Luciferase (and Friends),

<< Can you demonstrate that any warming or climate change is outside the natural variability." >>

<< just POINT to any IPCC empirical evidence, real data, real measurements. No models, forecasts or predictions thanks.>>

Luciferase, it’s OK to say “I don’t know”, it’s OK to say “I can’t answer the question”, it’s OK to say “the NIPCC is correct, there is no published IPCC data that contradicts their statement”, it’s even OK to say “I have not read either report”. At least you will gain respect for being honest.

We will appreciate your honesty by immediately granting you absolution with no further comment. Maybe then you will regain the respect of the “nice Spindoc” rather then the one who hunt’s down your bulltish.

All the CAGW supporters on this thread (and where are they when YOU need their help?) have had the chance to check both reports and not one can find the answer either, because it isn’t there. If you had found it you would be all over us like a rash, shouting it from the roof tops. (Hello?)

It serves no purpose to divert the discussion with abusive links about those who do not agree with you.

If it helps, you can take out ALL the scientists from both sides of the debate. No more abuse, OK?

Let’s just say, that Spindoc and Donald Duck assert that “there is no empirical evidence that any climate or global warming data records exist that are outside natural variability”.

Now you can answer the question without the need to abuse any scientists, you can just abuse Spindoc and Donald Duck.

Don’t answer questions that were NOT asked and focus on the question that was. If you or your fellow CAGW advocates cannot answer, just say so. How hard is that?

Donald Duck is presently attending the UNFCCC’s Christina Figuares “exit interview” and the “heretics inquisition” into why NASA released data showing record Antarctic sea ice. But he awaits your answer with baited breath.

Remember, its’ just you, me and Donald Duck, no scientists and no abusive links.