GCM MODELS FAIL - Chinese Scientists show the errors

[Billy_Bob]

Peer-reviewed pocket-calculator climate model exposes serious errors in complex computer models and reveals that Man’s influence on the climate is negligible


"A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and, as the Orient’s equivalent of Science or Nature, one of the world’s top six learned journals of science, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man’s effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis.

Thanks to the generosity of the Heartland Institute, the paper is open-access. It may be downloaded free from http://www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstract/abstract509579.shtml. Click on “PDF” just above the abstract."

You simply can not make this up. Scientists show the errors and how they invalidate all models.. Every single one... And this one is PEER REVIEWED (so no complaining Old Crock or Crick)

Source WUWT

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Any thinking person knows AGW is the biggest scam in human history

 

[skookerasbil]

LMAO...............



Watch the stampede of AGW nutters.........last week, the called the Indian Climate Conference scientists fake........this week, the Chinese scientists will be the fake scientists!!!

 

[IanC]

Interesting. Monckton is a hot button for many of the warmer posters here. I bet they are feverishly praying that someone from their side will quickly write some sort of a rebuttal, even if it gets shot down in flames. After all, it doesn't matter to them if it is true or not, just that they have a link to put up.

 

[IanC]

Interesting. Monckton is a hot button for many of the warmer posters here. I bet they are feverishly praying that someone from their side will quickly write some sort of a rebuttal, even if it gets shot down in flames. After all, it doesn't matter to them if it is true or not, just that they have a link to put up.

wow! I am surprised. it has been ten days now and there has been no response that I know of. tough nut to crack perhaps?

 

[ScienceRocks]

The past 8-10 years has been in a pause and I'll admit that we're now below most of the models from 1995 and 2000. Doesn't mean that we won't warm.

 

[IanC]

The past 8-10 years has been in a pause and I'll admit that we're now below most of the models from 1995 and 2000. Doesn't mean that we won't warm.

did you agree with the IPCC's decision to just ignore the plummeting climate sensitivity values and keep their predictions at basically the same numbers?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Interesting. Monckton is a hot button for many of the warmer posters here. I bet they are feverishly praying that someone from their side will quickly write some sort of a rebuttal, even if it gets shot down in flames. After all, it doesn't matter to them if it is true or not, just that they have a link to put up.

wow! I am surprised. it has been ten days now and there has been no response that I know of. tough nut to crack perhaps?

Most persons who try to dispute Monckton are laid waste. He does his homework and his math is solid. It is why the alarmists fear him.