The following comment was posted by JJ at January 31, 2012 at 3:38 pm on the WattsUpWithThat cross post of Part 2 of Tamino Once Again Misleads His Disciples.The rest of JJ’s comments on that WUWT thread are also a good read.
His comment is a great end to this series of posts. I’m going back to work on my long-term project.
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.