If they were widely discussed then why can't you provide one citation to back up your claim? I used the search feature, couldn't find any citation for the claim that institute is not part of NASA, now what.
Hopes of mild climate change dashed by new research
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
If they were widely discussed then why can't you provide one citation to back up your claim? I used the search feature, couldn't find any citation for the claim that institute is not part of NASA, now what.
What has that got do with my point at all?
you claimed the chart showing the models were failing was dishonest... instead of dealing with the facts you come back with typical attack the messenger crap.
you are a troll.
address the science and the data. what about the data put into those graphs was dishonest. you have problem with the balloon measurement of temperature. if you have a problem with the satellite data... show us how much different your preferred data is.
you have a problem with the projections made by the failed models?
where is the dishonesty?
you are a troll.
address the science and the data. what about the data put into those graphs was dishonest. you have problem with the balloon measurement of temperature. if you have a problem with the satellite data... show us how much different your preferred data is.
you have a problem with the projections made by the failed models?
where is the dishonesty?
So pointing out that the chart you posted is from a guy who is known to delete data from his presentations is 'dishonest'? How do I know they are facts given his history of being a fraud?
Where is the data he used to make the chart? Link to it and then we will know if he is not continuing his fraudulent actions.
If the models failed, why did your guy have to DELETE data to prove it?
Democrats have no plans of their own. They get all their ideas from the U.N. The U.N. has a "scientific" group that repeats it's lies until the left's echo chamber dwellers believe them. The Echo chamber's emitter is the New York Times. They start every single article that resonates on out via HuffPo, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, etc... People that do their own due diligence never read the echo chamber shit because it's all political lies. Therefore we should not be arguing with echo chamber dwellers, we should elect a POTUS that trashes the press and doesn't believe the lies... Oh wait, never mind, that was so 2016 of me!
Didn't knew Koch funded scientists are Democrats now
https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2...e-change-denier-now-admits-he-was-wrong-video
no one had to delete data to prove the models are failing. anyone who looks at the projections can see they projected big temperature rises... and there has been very little to no rise the last 20 years depending on the data set you look at. its a known by everyone but trolls.
here is the second chart... you can see the 95.7th percentile. If you understood the argument you tried to make... you realize that is the lower band for the models projections.
Beyond that... that is model failure even for agw nutter scientists.
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.”[/QUOTE]
here is the second chart... you can see the 95.7th percentile. If you understood the argument you tried to make... you realize that is the lower band for the models projections.
Beyond that... that is model failure even for agw nutter scientists.
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.”[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Total BS.
They projected THREE scenarios - and your guy ignores the BEST case scenario and averages it out with the WORST case scenario to peddle his dishonest BS. Why not simply plot realized temperatures against the best case instead of peddling averages as if they make sense.