Climate Models Wrong Yet Again

[Crick]

Computer models created by people who have an expected outcome.

Do you by chance have computer models from people with different expectations showing different results?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Computer models created by people who have an expected outcome.

Do you by chance have computer models from people with different expectations showing different results?

The government has an agenda so refuses to fund us to create an accurate computer model.

 

[jc456]

Computer models created by people who have an expected outcome.

Do you by chance have computer models from people with different expectations showing different results?

doesn't that take funding? Where do you supposed that would come from? We already know the governments don't want different results so getting money there is virtually impossible, and if the fossil fuel industry covers the costs, all you wackos loose a nut. But thanks for playing.

 

[Crick]

So, the answer is no. Got it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So, the answer is no. Got it.

shows you a fool by showing you they must fudge the models to make them appear relevant... just like our political polling today... Gall-E-G......

 

[Crick]

I think it shows (and unlike you, I can produce evidence) that GCMs that do NOT assume AGW is taking place DO NOT WORK. Such models produce temperature trends which rapidly deviate GROSSLY from observations. They are completely unable to recreate (hind cast) the previous century and their output looking forward borders on the absurd.

 

[jc456]

I think it shows (and unlike you, I can produce evidence) that GCMs that do NOT assume AGW is taking place DO NOT WORK. Such models produce temperature trends which rapidly deviate GROSSLY from observations. They are completely unable to recreate (hind cast) the previous century and their output looking forward borders on the absurd.

evidence? ..ok frances.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I think it shows (and unlike you, I can produce evidence) that GCMs that do NOT assume AGW is taking place DO NOT WORK. Such models produce temperature trends which rapidly deviate GROSSLY from observations. They are completely unable to recreate (hind cast) the previous century and their output looking forward borders on the absurd.

evidence? ..ok frances.

The facts don't seem to match cricks bull shit rhetoric..

 

[Crick]

You have no facts there. You have Roy Spencer's blundering attempt to badmouth CMIP 5 GCMs. See HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception.

And neither Spencer's work nor your comments address YOUR problem that NO ONE has ever created a GCM that even approaches reality without including AGW. If you disagree, find us one.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You have no facts there. You have Roy Spencer's blundering attempt to badmouth CMIP 5 GCMs. See HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception.

And neither Spencer's work nor your comments address YOUR problem that NO ONE has ever created a GCM that even approaches reality without including AGW. If you disagree, find us one.

Hot Whopper?

REALLY????? You use this pile of trash? Miriam O'Brien is not credible on any subject and a proven liar just like SKS and John Cook, There is a reason she is called "slandering Sou"..

Come on crick find some facts you can articulate.. Or is slandering and deception all you got?

 

[Crick]

Refute ANYTHING she said in that article.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Refute ANYTHING she said in that article.

Her article has been shown patently false by empirical evidence. Even the modelers admitted they all failed.. Only the hacks are hanging on today..

 

[Crick]

Give us one of her points that has been refuted by empirical knowledge Billy. Just saying it's so doesn't count for much. You assume you noted that Spencer himself attempted to refute her and lost. So, you must have something better than he did. Let's hear it.