Global warming, my ass!

[Billy_Bob]

It has been a spectacular failure, which is why you pompous warmist hypocrites ignore it, despite that it all comes from your holy climate bible, the IPCC reports. I have posted the evidence several times now, yet not once did any of you warmist clods make a cogent reply to them, not ONCE. Because you KNOW you can't since the evidence of its failure is INDISPUTABLE!

Your strawmen do not address the fact that observed temperatures are within the predicted range.

Climate models are even more accurate than you thought

2015 11.00 BST Last modified on Wed 14 Feb 2018 17.38 GMT
[...] When accounting for these factors, the study finds that the difference between observed and modeled temperatures since 1975 is smaller than previously believed. The models had projected a 0.226°C per decade global surface air warming trend for 1975–2014 (and 0.212°C per decade over the geographic area covered by the HadCRUT4 record). However, when matching the HadCRUT4 methods for measuring sea surface temperatures, the modeled trend is reduced to 0.196°C per decade. The observed HadCRUT4 trend is 0.170°C per decade.

Comparison of 84 climate model simulations (using RCP8.5) against HadCRUT4 observations (black), using either air temperatures (red line and shading) or blended temperatures using the HadCRUT4 method (blue line and shading). The upper panel shows anomalies derived from the unmodified climate model results, the lower shows the results adjusted to include the effect of updated forcings from Schmidt et al. (2014).
https://www.theguardian.com​

Which prediction? You mean the last one where they trained out the massive divergence from 2007 where the whole of the fraud was clearly shown? They never made any changes to the model. they simply "trained" the divergence away hoping no one would notice...

YOU'VE BEEN DUPED!

 

[Sunsettommy]

It has been a spectacular failure, which is why you pompous warmist hypocrites ignore it, despite that it all comes from your holy climate bible, the IPCC reports. I have posted the evidence several times now, yet not once did any of you warmist clods make a cogent reply to them, not ONCE. Because you KNOW you can't since the evidence of its failure is INDISPUTABLE!

Your strawmen do not address the fact that observed temperatures are within the predicted range.

Climate models are even more accurate than you thought

2015 11.00 BST Last modified on Wed 14 Feb 2018 17.38 GMT
[...] When accounting for these factors, the study finds that the difference between observed and modeled temperatures since 1975 is smaller than previously believed. The models had projected a 0.226°C per decade global surface air warming trend for 1975–2014 (and 0.212°C per decade over the geographic area covered by the HadCRUT4 record). However, when matching the HadCRUT4 methods for measuring sea surface temperatures, the modeled trend is reduced to 0.196°C per decade. The observed HadCRUT4 trend is 0.170°C per decade.

Comparison of 84 climate model simulations (using RCP8.5) against HadCRUT4 observations (black), using either air temperatures (red line and shading) or blended temperatures using the HadCRUT4 method (blue line and shading). The upper panel shows anomalies derived from the unmodified climate model results, the lower shows the results adjusted to include the effect of updated forcings from Schmidt et al. (2014).
https://www.theguardian.com​

Which prediction? You mean the last one where they trained out the massive divergence from 2007 where the whole of the fraud was clearly shown? They never made any changes to the model. they simply "trained" the divergence away hoping no one would notice...

YOU'VE BEEN DUPED!

He is so duped that he doesn't realize that RCP 8.5 needs a lot higher per decade warming rate than what HadCrut shows in his own chart.

" However, when matching the HadCRUT4 methods for measuring sea surface temperatures, the modeled trend is reduced to 0.196°C per decade. The observed HadCRUT4 trend is 0.170°C per decade."

bolding is mine

It is why I posted those HINTS, to see if they can see the gaping hole in Nutterboys insultingly STUPID article!

But RCP 8.5 needs a LOT higher per decade rate than what ..... he he...... ha ha ha.... HadCrut4 is showing to make it work. Do they have a clue how much higher it needs to be.....?

I already know, but do they have the brains to figure it out?

That is how easily duped he is, beware reading anything Nutterboy writes.

Gawad, the stupid BURNS!

 

[Sunsettommy]

It appears the fans of Nutterboy ran off, a smart decision.

Did anyone figure out how far off the RCP 8.5 nonsense is?

 

[Crick]

RCP 8.5, like RCP 2.6, 4.5, 6.0 are SCENARIOS, not models. When you ask how far off they might be, I have to wonder what parameter you're thinking of. How far off they are from their author's intent? That would be zero. How far off they are from actual CO2 emissions between 2006 and 2100? We won't know that till 2100, will we.

 

[Sunsettommy]

RCP 8.5, like RCP 2.6, 4.5, 6.0 are SCENARIOS, not models. When you ask how far off they might be, I have to wonder what parameter you're thinking of. How far off they are from their author's intent? That would be zero. How far off they are from actual CO2 emissions between 2006 and 2100? We won't know that till 2100, will we.

Your stupidity beats your ignorance on this one since the RCP website where those "scenarios" comes are PART of the modeling process to get those temperature projections set for year 2100. Without models, they are just a bunch of meaningless numbers.

"Description of the RCPs

The RCP database aims at documenting the emissions, concentrations, and land-cover change projections of the so-called "Representative Concentration Pathways" (RCPs). The Representative Concentration Pathways are based on selected scenarios from four modeling teams/models (NIES/AIM, IIASA/MESSAGE, PNNL/MiniCAM, and PBL/IMAGE). The RCPs are meant to serve as input for climate and atmospheric chemistry modeling as part of the preparatory phase for the development of new scenarios for the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report and beyond. Further documentation can be found in the IPCC Expert Meeting Report on New Scenarios (Noordwijkerhout report) and the "Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) Draft Handshake". "

bolding mine

Meanwhile you and CNM completely avoid post 222, that was about the RCP 8.5 modeled impact.

Gee I wonder why...............................................

 

[Sunsettommy]

RCP 8.5, like RCP 2.6, 4.5, 6.0 are SCENARIOS, not models. When you ask how far off they might be, I have to wonder what parameter you're thinking of. How far off they are from their author's intent? That would be zero. How far off they are from actual CO2 emissions between 2006 and 2100? We won't know that till 2100, will we.

Hey Crick, why don't you ADDRESS posts 215 and 222?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Silence..., gee and it was just getting HOT!

Warmists lives in a fantasy world of virtual reality, where anything can be conjured up to maintain a delusion, while the rest of us go on.

I look out the door this morning, realizing that days of a warming world is coming to a close, since the cyclic patterns of warming and cooling are quite specific and predictable. Cooling is coming on us.................

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, anyone, lab work on black holes? Or are they the figments of imagination of a cult?

"New SUPER-SIZED Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland WILL create black hole on earth
SCIENTISTS have discovered black holes are easier to create than previously thought, meaning the Large Hadron Collider’s (LHC) super-sized successor will be powerful enough to spawn one."

New SUPER-SIZED Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland WILL create black hole on earth

So, it's possible to create a black hole, but it's physically impossible to test 2 Earth atmosphere where the only variance is that one has 280PPM CO2 and the other 400PPM. Maybe they're afraid 400PPM CO2 could end all life on Earth?