How accurate are CO2 Models?

Mostly your posting is crap, Ben. All yap-yap, and nothing at all to back up the yap-yap.
Except of course that I posted and linked to the stomatal studies showing the CO2 mythology of stability is crap (which would make the sensativity variable crap), and i linked to the testimony of Dr Scaffetta to the EPA showing the solar variable is crap, in which you can find the links to Spencer showing that clouds are poorly (and possibly wrongly) modelled making them crap, and of course there is the fact that no model has successfully modelled climate going forward since their inception... which of course makes them crap to begin with.

The SI studies show that CO2 was not in fact stable prior to the industrial era, in fact it ranged from around 200ppmv to about 360ppmv and averaged around 305pppmv, not the 270 or 280 AGW mythos claims. That fact alone would cause every model in existance to be wrong, as there predictive ability going backward (for callibration) is tied to a sensativity variable assigned to a static CO2 level, which of course CO2 was not. Further the SI studies confirm on a decadal to centenial scale what callon, Pettit and Fasher found on a centenial to millenialscale when studying interglatial conversions.... that CO2 lags temperture, not drives it. In the case of the SI studies its about 130 year lag.

Scaffeta's work showing 50% of 20th century warming was due to solar variables other than irradiation was even acknowledged by the IPCC, then ignored in their "conclusions". Now that the work has moved to a phenominalogical study, they don't want to look at it.... cause the figure just went up to 69%. Showing at a minimum that solar variables are very poorly constructed in models.

Spencers work on clouds is rather new and needs more wrok to confirm; however Gavin schmidts attempted debunking was weak, poorly thought out, and easily refuted by Spencer. Doesn't really matter though, since even the AGW faithful admit clouds are poorly modelled.

Have fun!
 
32 degrees?

That's the difference of being warm or freezing.
Hitting your target and not know how badly you shot
being in the ocean or shipwrecked on shore


good lord

Why does anyone, ANYONE, still want to give these idiots billions of our hard earned dollars.
 
32 degrees?

That's the difference of being warm or freezing.
Hitting your target and not know how badly you shot
being in the ocean or shipwrecked on shore


good lord

Why does anyone, ANYONE, still want to give these idiots billions of our hard earned dollars.


hahaha. Old Rocks will still bluster about how the models are accurate and precise though.
 
Mostly your posting is crap, Ben. All yap-yap, and nothing at all to back up the yap-yap.
Except of course that I posted and linked to the stomatal studies showing the CO2 mythology of stability is crap (which would make the sensativity variable crap), and i linked to the testimony of Dr Scaffetta to the EPA showing the solar variable is crap, in which you can find the links to Spencer showing that clouds are poorly (and possibly wrongly) modelled making them crap, and of course there is the fact that no model has successfully modelled climate going forward since their inception... which of course makes them crap to begin with.

The SI studies show that CO2 was not in fact stable prior to the industrial era, in fact it ranged from around 200ppmv to about 360ppmv and averaged around 305pppmv, not the 270 or 280 AGW mythos claims. That fact alone would cause every model in existance to be wrong, as there predictive ability going backward (for callibration) is tied to a sensativity variable assigned to a static CO2 level, which of course CO2 was not. Further the SI studies confirm on a decadal to centenial scale what callon, Pettit and Fasher found on a centenial to millenialscale when studying interglatial conversions.... that CO2 lags temperture, not drives it. In the case of the SI studies its about 130 year lag.

Scaffeta's work showing 50% of 20th century warming was due to solar variables other than irradiation was even acknowledged by the IPCC, then ignored in their "conclusions". Now that the work has moved to a phenominalogical study, they don't want to look at it.... cause the figure just went up to 69%. Showing at a minimum that solar variables are very poorly constructed in models.

Spencers work on clouds is rather new and needs more wrok to confirm; however Gavin schmidts attempted debunking was weak, poorly thought out, and easily refuted by Spencer. Doesn't really matter though, since even the AGW faithful admit clouds are poorly modelled.

Have fun!


after watching a few Spencer/Christie youtube videos, anybody can see how the models cannot be trusted to make predictions. its not rocket science, its common sense that shows they just cant do it
 
Of course, just because the American Institute of Physics states that CO2 is the primary driver of the present warming, should have absolutely no influence on your thinking. After all, an undegreeded ex-TV weatherman posting a blog on the internet knows so much more than all those pointy headed Phd Physicists.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The worlds foremost climate expert disagrees

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes..."
 

Forum List

Back
Top