How have the IPCC's computer models performed?

[Zander]

The traits of a fanatic : willingness to conduct personal attacks, to limit debate, to use questionable facts, and to seek government to impose policy on others.

Sound familiar CAGW Cultists?



THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!

 

[Crick]

Do you REALLY want to pull Spencer and Christy's JOKE out here and pretend its real?

Why don't you do some searching and find some of the real discussion about this Spencer claptrap. You've embarrassed yourself here often enough. You really don't need the added exposure.

You mean some real cherry picking and denial of the facts from a warmist wacko? No thanks..I will stick to the facts which is what the graph shows. I know it must be like sunlight to a vampire for you, but try and look...set yourself free...stop being a stooge.

 

[IanC]

The above graphic is Figure 1.4 from Chapter 1 of a draft of the Fifth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The initials at the top represent the First Assessment Report (FAR) in 1990, the Second (SAR) in 1995. Shaded banks show range of predictions from each of the four climate models used for all four reports since 1990. That last report, AR4, was issued in 2007. Model runs after 1992 were tuned to track temporary cooling due to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption in The Philippines. The black squares, show with uncertainty bars, measure the observed average surface temperatures over the same interval. The range of model runs is syndicated by the vertical bars. The light grey area above and below is not part of the model prediction range. The final version of the new IPCC report, AR5, will be issued later this month.

your charts ask a good question, how to start a comparison of trends without cherrypicking the date for the best results (in your view). there are a great many charts out there, all showing a divergence from reality by the models. even yours. The IPCC chart above doesnt go back to 1980 but it shows a clear problem. are you willing to say that the IPCC was purposely making the models look bad?

the models arent right. it is time to change some of the assumptions that initiate them. like climate sensitivity for one.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you REALLY want to pull Spencer and Christy's JOKE out here and pretend its real?

Why don't you do some searching and find some of the real discussion about this Spencer claptrap. You've embarrassed yourself here often enough. You really don't need the added exposure.

You mean some real cherry picking and denial of the facts from a warmist wacko? No thanks..I will stick to the facts which is what the graph shows. I know it must be like sunlight to a vampire for you, but try and look...set yourself free...stop being a stooge.

The "CM" in "CMIP5" stands for "Climate Model." That means it's a computer model of the climate, not data. It's horseshit, in other words. And notice how the computer models diverge from the actual temperatures after the year 2000. You actually posted the proof that the AGW cult member theories about the climate are wrong.

 

[Crick]

That's the topic of this thread you dimwit.

 

[westwall]

That's the topic of this thread you dimwit.

Yes. And the evidence shows that they are fatally flawed. That means they are less than useless.

 

[Kosh]

That's the topic of this thread you dimwit.

And you would think that you would post that one link that I keep asking for.

Post the link to the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

Since you cannot shows that AGW is based on a belief and not science.

AGW is religion and always has been.

 

[Crick]

You mean some real cherry picking and denial of the facts from a warmist wacko? No thanks..I will stick to the facts which is what the graph shows. I know it must be like sunlight to a vampire for you, but try and look...set yourself free...stop being a stooge.

The "CM" in "CMIP5" stands for "Climate Model." That means it's a computer model of the climate, not data. It's horseshit, in other words. And notice how the computer models diverge from the actual temperatures after the year 2000. You actually posted the proof that the AGW cult member theories about the climate are wrong.

What I posted here is very convincing evidence that Spencer and Christy knowingly and willfully manipulated these data to produce a desired - and FALSE - result.

This is the sort of fraud and manipulation all you deniers claim you are trying to reveal and overcome. Yet here you are using it hand over fist.

 

[Kosh]

What I posted here is very convincing evidence that Spencer and Christy knowingly and willfully manipulated these data to produce a desired - and FALSE - result.

This is the sort of fraud and manipulation all you deniers claim you are trying to reveal and overcome. Yet here you are using it hand over fist.

No you posted AGW cult propaganda as they have to do this in order to feed the money in the AGW church.

 

[Crick]

I'm not feeding money to anyone you fool. The money that's driving this conversation isn't the pittance going into climate research. It's the trillions going to pay for the fossil fuels we burn. That you people are stupid enough to think 97% of the world's climate scientists could all be crooks but ignore the possibility that the fossil fuel industry might have the motivation to be driving your bus just astounds me.

 

[Kosh]

I'm not feeding money to anyone you fool. The money that's driving this conversation isn't the pittance going into climate research. It's the trillions going to pay for the fossil fuels we burn. That you people are stupid enough to think 97% of the world's climate scientists could all be crooks but ignore the possibility that the fossil fuel industry might have the motivation to be driving your bus just astounds me.

How much did you give Al Gore to off set your carbon footprint on that post?

Oh my the AGW cult will never grow beyond their programming!

 

[Crick]

I'm not feeding money to anyone you fool. The money that's driving this conversation isn't the pittance going into climate research. It's the trillions going to pay for the fossil fuels we burn. That you people are stupid enough to think 97% of the world's climate scientists could all be crooks but ignore the possibility that the fossil fuel industry might have the motivation to be driving your bus just astounds me.

How much did you give Al Gore to off set your carbon footprint on that post?

Oh my the AGW cult will never grow beyond their programming!

He got whatever portion of my theatre admission went his way. And my recollection is that all got donated to some worthy cause.

How much have you and I paid in fuel bills since that movie came out? $10,000? $20,000? MORE?

You ******* idiots.

 

[IanC]

The "CM" in "CMIP5" stands for "Climate Model." That means it's a computer model of the climate, not data. It's horseshit, in other words. And notice how the computer models diverge from the actual temperatures after the year 2000. You actually posted the proof that the AGW cult member theories about the climate are wrong.

What I posted here is very convincing evidence that Spencer and Christy knowingly and willfully manipulated these data to produce a desired - and FALSE - result.

This is the sort of fraud and manipulation all you deniers claim you are trying to reveal and overcome. Yet here you are using it hand over fist.

the first Spencer graph, June4, 2013 that started this off-

people complained about only trend lines so June6, 2013-

then in Feb 2014 he updated it with more models, and a surface-based temp database-

you say he has pulled a fast one. are they all bogus? do you think if I looked for the reason that Spencer would have a reasonable explanation for starting this graph, out of many, in 1983? did you look? or did you just find a hatchet job and then stop thinking altogether?

I often look for alternate explanations and opinions for all sorts of AGW related claims. do you? or do you just read SkepticalScience approved articles and papers? hahahahahahaha. I think we all know the answer to that.

 

[mamooth]

I often look for alternate explanations and opinions for all sorts of AGW related claims.

If you didn't quote solely from CultOfMcIntyre groupies and WUWT, that might be believable. Since you only quote from such sources, it's not. We look at all sides, while you only look at your cult-approved sources. You can claim otherwise, but your postings here don't support such claims.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

20-Year-Old Report Successfully Predicted Warming: Scientists | First IPCC Report

Time has proven that even 22 years ago climate scientists understood the dynamics behind global warming well enough to accurately predict warming, says an analysis that compares predictions in 1990 with 20 years of temperature records.





OH OH OH OH OH

The models predicted no warming these past 15 years?

Rlry?

 

[Crick]

I don't know, why don't we actually look...

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n4/full/nclimate1763.html

That doesn't seem to fall in with your "CO2 does not drive climate" chant.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

"a recalibration [with lower CO2 sensitivity] reproducing the reduced warming of the last 15 years appears hardly feasible."

According to the scientists.

All of which suggests that CO2 is not the control knob of climate and natural variability is.

According to the blogger.

But the blogger knows most of his readers are complete bubbling idiots and will think the above statement was actually said by the scientists.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't know, why don't we actually look...

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n4/full/nclimate1763.html

That doesn't seem to fall in with your "CO2 does not drive climate" chant.

There's something seriously ******* wrong with you. You keep posting to Warmer slapping each other on the back congratulating each other on their "Consensus"

That's not science

This is a chart showing CO2 LAGGING temperature over a 500,000 year period

Your standard moronic reply is: But, but, but , but that's not global you Denier!!

First you have NOTHING in response showing how CO2 was driving climate over the same period and second over 500,000 it's safe to say CO2 did not drive temperature

If your friends won't do an intervention, have yourself committed

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"a recalibration [with lower CO2 sensitivity] reproducing the reduced warming of the last 15 years appears hardly feasible."

According to the scientists.

All of which suggests that CO2 is not the control knob of climate and natural variability is.

According to the blogger.

But the blogger knows most of his readers are complete bubbling idiots and will think the above statement was actually said by the scientists.

CO2 not a control knob over 500,000 years.

Tell us how you know better

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I don't know, why don't we actually look...

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n4/full/nclimate1763.html

That doesn't seem to fall in with your "CO2 does not drive climate" chant.

There's something seriously ******* wrong with you. You keep posting to Warmer slapping each other on the back congratulating each other on their "Consensus"

That's not science

This is a chart showing CO2 LAGGING temperature over a 500,000 year period

Your standard moronic reply is: But, but, but , but that's not global you Denier!!

First you have NOTHING in response showing how CO2 was driving climate over the same period and second over 500,000 it's safe to say CO2 did not drive temperature

If your friends won't do an intervention, have yourself committed

Lagging Co2 in the past is completely consistent with its role as a positive feedback mechanism.