Would it matter? This appears to be a completely unmoderated forum.
Actual New York Times Article entitled "The end of snow?"
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
Would it matter? This appears to be a completely unmoderated forum.
you really are losing your mind during this cold snap aren't you. . it does not matter which data set you choose. the models failed.
fc... I am not sure whether you were lying about the data sets or just, an agw nutter fruit cake who knows nothing and therefore feels free to lie, or you are a sick fraudster.
how dare you tell us the data was different and accuse me of being the fraud.... you are sick and twisted. you should apologize.
see the red and green line on the top chart... see how they match up with the blue icons on lower chart... (its the surface temps and satellite temps on the top chart and the satellite temps on the lower chart)
see how the yellow lines match up with the dots on the bottom of the lower chart. (its the ballon data set)
how dare you tell us the data was different and accuse me of being the fraud.... you are sick and twisted. you should apologize.
see the red and green line on the top chart... see how they match up with the blue icons on lower chart... (its the surface temps and satellite temps on the top chart and the satellite temps on the lower chart)
see how the yellow lines match up with the dots on the bottom of the lower chart. (its the ballon data set)
and its in the 70s where I live right now maybe even 80.
but that does not mean that fc is not being driven nuts by the fact the much of his world is saying hey there is no warming right now.
and he realizes he has no science to say it is or that man made co2 is causing it.
but that does not mean that fc is not being driven nuts by the fact the much of his world is saying hey there is no warming right now.
and he realizes he has no science to say it is or that man made co2 is causing it.
Greenland huh? Is that the only warm spot you could find?
How about the recent 4,400 record low temps set here in the US in the last month?
fc... I am not sure whether you were lying about the data sets or just, an agw nutter fruit cake who knows nothing and therefore feels free to lie, or you are a sick fraudster.
how dare you tell us the data was different and accuse me of being the fraud.... you are sick and twisted. you should apologize.
see the red and green line on the top chart... see how they match up with the blue icons on lower chart... (its the surface temps and satellite temps on the top chart and the satellite temps on the lower chart)
see how the yellow lines match up with the dots on the bottom of the lower chart. (its the ballon data set)
Bullshit. Just more lies from you and your lying sources. That chart STILL takes selective data sets which show the least rise and it does not include all models nor their probability envelopes. If it did you would see that the temps are within the prediction envelopes. Why should apologize to a willful liar that is spreading deceit? Fuck you douchebag.
I will concede this much. The observed air temp rise has been at the bottom of the range of models and probability functions. They did not foresee the oceans absorbing as much heat as they did.
But this is a far cry from calling climate modeling an epic failure. The current trend would have to continue for several more decades before that could be said. The new data will now be included in the models making them better.
All this talk ignores the fact that you want to ignore which is that the earth as a whole has not stopped warming at all. This is the essential point that as a liar you want to ignore.
you can change the argument after you apologize....
you just argument that talking about the use of the satellite temperature record was fraudulent and you went bat shit crazy on us.
now we prove to you the satellite data was virtually the same as the surface temp data... and what ...
you are just continuing with your misrepresentation and lies.
Selective data sets...wtf. What data are you going to use which would show a significant difference from Hadley?
harcrut 4 data is the standard data... you know... hadley from the UKs MET office...
stop lying your ass off and apologize for your baseless insults and accusations.
and your concession is an admission you were totally wrong...
what probability envelope are using... to say we are at the bottom of the range.... which models are still valid.
be careful you crazy drone I already know the answer.
you just argument that talking about the use of the satellite temperature record was fraudulent and you went bat shit crazy on us.
now we prove to you the satellite data was virtually the same as the surface temp data... and what ...
you are just continuing with your misrepresentation and lies.
Selective data sets...wtf. What data are you going to use which would show a significant difference from Hadley?
harcrut 4 data is the standard data... you know... hadley from the UKs MET office...
stop lying your ass off and apologize for your baseless insults and accusations.
and your concession is an admission you were totally wrong...
what probability envelope are using... to say we are at the bottom of the range.... which models are still valid.
be careful you crazy drone I already know the answer.
Bullshit. Just more lies from you and your lying sources. That chart STILL takes selective data sets which show the least rise and it does not include all models nor their probability envelopes. If it did you would see that the temps are within the prediction envelopes. Why should apologize to a willful liar that is spreading deceit? Fuck you douchebag.
I will concede this much. The observed air temp rise has been at the bottom of the range of models and probability functions. They did not foresee the oceans absorbing as much heat as they did.
But this is a far cry from calling climate modeling an epic failure. The current trend would have to continue for several more decades before that could be said. The new data will now be included in the models making them better.
All this talk ignores the fact that you want to ignore which is that the earth as a whole has not stopped warming at all. This is the essential point that as a liar you want to ignore.
almost every model has failed... even an agw nutter scientist...... pretty much has to admit they have failed...
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...-un-climate-models-wrong-no-global-warming-17
Using datasets of actual temperatures recorded by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS), the United Kingdom’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the University of East Anglia (Hadley-CRU), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), satellites measuring atmospheric and deep oceanic temperatures, and a remote sensor system in California, Christy found that “all show a lack of warming over the past 17 years.”
“All 73 models’ predictions were on average three to four times what occurred in the real world,” Christy pointed out. “The closest was a Russian model that predicted a one-degree increase."
http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?
Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?
Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.
SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?
Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...-un-climate-models-wrong-no-global-warming-17
Using datasets of actual temperatures recorded by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS), the United Kingdom’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the University of East Anglia (Hadley-CRU), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), satellites measuring atmospheric and deep oceanic temperatures, and a remote sensor system in California, Christy found that “all show a lack of warming over the past 17 years.”
“All 73 models’ predictions were on average three to four times what occurred in the real world,” Christy pointed out. “The closest was a Russian model that predicted a one-degree increase."
http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?
Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?
Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.
SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?
Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.