Posted by Jeff Condon on November 27, 2009
Ben Santer had this unusual reply WRT a paper submitted by MM which used the same math that Ben Santer used to prove models were so good except they extended the climate model trend and temperature data after 2000. I haven’t read their paper cause it ain’t published yet but the Santer use of data pre-2000 only data was is pretty convenient to say the least. Consider that ‘skeptics’ or realists as we prefer suspect that models don’t relate the recent 10 years of no warming very well. As pointed out in other emails.
Ben makes the ridiculous claim that somehow McIntyre doesn’t realize that longer trends with the same noise have tighter confidence intervals but besides that truly goofy claim, he says it’s of no practical significance to look at model data for over what amounts to about 20 years. It seems a bit arbitrary don’t you think?
From: Ben Santer
Subject: Re: Good news! Plus less good news
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:13:21 -0800
Yeah, I had already seen the stuff from McIntyre. Tom Peterson sent it
to me. McIntyre has absolutely no understanding of climate science. He
doesn’t realize that, as the length of record increases and trend
confidence intervals decrease, even trivially small differences between
an individual observed trend and the multi-model average trend are
judged to be highly significant. These model-versus-observed trend
differences are, however, of no practical significance whatsoever - they
are well within the structural uncertainties of the observed MSU trends.
It would be great if Francis and Myles got McIntyre’s paper for review.
Also, I see that McIntyre has put email correspondence with me in the
Supporting Information of his paper. What a jerk!
I will write to Keith again. The Symposium wouldn’t be the same without
him. I think Tom would be quite disappointed.
Have fun in Switzerland!
With best regards,