So? You said they are all students, except this guy is a scientist.
Hopes of mild climate change dashed by new research
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
So? You said they are all students, except this guy is a scientist.
here is another chart which tells the same story... you objection to the Christy chart being dishonest is another fake news lie.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2016/0...-warming-dr-christy-sets-the-record-straight/
Michaels and Knappenberger comment:
This is a devastating indictment of climate model performance. For periods of time longer than about 20 years, the observed trends from all data sources fall beneath the lower bound which contains 95 percent of all model trends and in the majority of cases, falls beneath even the absolute smallest trend found in any of the 102 climate model runs.
One other very encouraging result, using the satellite and balloon data, is that the observed trends are very flat, meaning that they are constant, neither increasing nor decreasing depending upon length of record. Greenhouse physics actually predicts this, so what we are seeing may very well in fact be the greenhouse-gas-generated response, not random noise. It is simply that the rate of warming is far beneath what has been forecast.
----
http://www.globalwarming.org/2016/0...-warming-dr-christy-sets-the-record-straight/
"Although not specifically mentioned in the video, some “consensus” scientists claim that in Figure 1, Christy’s choice of 1979 as the baseline year makes the divergence between models and observations look bigger than if some other baseline–such as the average temperature during 1981-2000–were used.
That is certainly the case, but the criticism is both disingenuous and irrelevant. It is disingenuous because it suggests the 1979 baseline was conveniently chosen to obtain a particular result. Not so. Christy chose 1979 because it is the start of the satellite record. Making 1979 the baseline year allows for easy comparison of model projections and observations over the full length of the 37-year satellite record.
The criticism is irrelevant because, Christy explains, “The issue here is the rate of warming of the bulk atmosphere, i.e. the trend.” As noted, the satellites on average predict a warming rate that is about 250% faster than the observed rate. To illustrate the divergence in warming rates, Christy’s Figure 3 shows only the trend lines without the inter-annual variations due to non-greenhouse gas factors. “This is analogous to plotting the overall average speed of a runner along the course even though they likely ran slower on an uphill, and faster on a downhill.”
http://www.globalwarming.org/2016/0...-warming-dr-christy-sets-the-record-straight/
Michaels and Knappenberger comment:
This is a devastating indictment of climate model performance. For periods of time longer than about 20 years, the observed trends from all data sources fall beneath the lower bound which contains 95 percent of all model trends and in the majority of cases, falls beneath even the absolute smallest trend found in any of the 102 climate model runs.
One other very encouraging result, using the satellite and balloon data, is that the observed trends are very flat, meaning that they are constant, neither increasing nor decreasing depending upon length of record. Greenhouse physics actually predicts this, so what we are seeing may very well in fact be the greenhouse-gas-generated response, not random noise. It is simply that the rate of warming is far beneath what has been forecast.
----
http://www.globalwarming.org/2016/0...-warming-dr-christy-sets-the-record-straight/
"Although not specifically mentioned in the video, some “consensus” scientists claim that in Figure 1, Christy’s choice of 1979 as the baseline year makes the divergence between models and observations look bigger than if some other baseline–such as the average temperature during 1981-2000–were used.
That is certainly the case, but the criticism is both disingenuous and irrelevant. It is disingenuous because it suggests the 1979 baseline was conveniently chosen to obtain a particular result. Not so. Christy chose 1979 because it is the start of the satellite record. Making 1979 the baseline year allows for easy comparison of model projections and observations over the full length of the 37-year satellite record.
The criticism is irrelevant because, Christy explains, “The issue here is the rate of warming of the bulk atmosphere, i.e. the trend.” As noted, the satellites on average predict a warming rate that is about 250% faster than the observed rate. To illustrate the divergence in warming rates, Christy’s Figure 3 shows only the trend lines without the inter-annual variations due to non-greenhouse gas factors. “This is analogous to plotting the overall average speed of a runner along the course even though they likely ran slower on an uphill, and faster on a downhill.”
Great, so when your previous fake chart was pointed out, you post another one from a serial fraud who is known to delete data from charts he makes.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/16/more-fraud-from-pat-michaels/comment-page-1/
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/16/more-fraud-from-pat-michaels/comment-page-1/
Gavin Schmidt is the character they named to replace the other clown Hansen. He is not a mainstream NASA employee but the Director of the Goddard climate center provided via a federal grant. "Gavin A. Schmidt is a climatologist, climate modeler and Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, and co-founder of the award winning climate science blog RealClimate."
NASA needs to focus its efforts on Space exploration -- which is the reason the institution was formed. Climate Science should be handled by NOAA.
So are they part of NASA or not and whether Schmidt is a student or not. Simple questions.
As stated very directly on the climate.nasa.gov website at the bottom of every page, the website is maintained by students at the California Institute of Technology.
I am looking forward to this climate webpage being taken down on instructions from the Trump administration eventually.
I am not talking about the website, am talking about the institute - is it a legit part of NASA or not and is their director a non-student.
Are any of the people who work at the Climate Institute at Goddard full-time NASA employees?
Yeah we already answered that many times... go look it up.
So first the ruse was about them being 'students' and now it's shifted to 'part-time employees'.
I stated the climate.nasa.gov is maintained by students -- which it is. Let's go back to my statement once again....