IPCC Models have been Proven to be Wrong

[SSDD]

The models predict a distinctive pattern of warming - a hot spot of enhanced warming in the upper troposphere over the tropics, shown as the large red spot in the diagram below. Radiosonde data from weather balloons show no such "hot spot" pattern. If it was there we would have easily detected it.

Model Predicted Warming

Actual Radiosonde Measured Warming

The predicted hot-spot is entirely absent from the observational record. This shows that most of the global temperature change cannot be attributed to increasing CO2 concentrations.

The models fail because they assume both water vapour and clouds strongly increase the CO2 induced temperature changes, whereas recent research shows both water vapour and clouds greatly reduce the temperature changes.

Friends of Science |

Crick provided me with a link that claims that the upper tropospheric hot spot was detected and documented with ground based thermometers....it got lost because of station moves and such...Imagine...ground based thermometers measuring a hot spot that is located 8Km up in the atmosphere while a million radiosondes and satellites couldn't find it...

 

[SSDD]

The models predict a distinctive pattern of warming - a hot spot of enhanced warming in the upper troposphere over the tropics, shown as the large red spot in the diagram below. Radiosonde data from weather balloons show no such "hot spot" pattern. If it was there we would have easily detected it.

Model Predicted Warming

Actual Radiosonde Measured Warming

The predicted hot-spot is entirely absent from the observational record. This shows that most of the global temperature change cannot be attributed to increasing CO2 concentrations.

The models fail because they assume both water vapour and clouds strongly increase the CO2 induced temperature changes, whereas recent research shows both water vapour and clouds greatly reduce the temperature changes.

Friends of Science |

Yup. If I remember correctly, the climate mafia over at RealClimate made a defense of the TS where they pivoted to stratospheric cooling as the 'real' signature of CO2 induced change. One of the main things to watch out for is the change of scale in the temperature colours. They like to misdirect by letting people assume they are comparing like vs like because the colours are similar but the actual numbers are quite different.

Except the cooling trend stopped about 10 years ago and started showing a very slight warming trend...about the time that talk started among real scientists about possible cooling.

 

[IanC]

Are you asking ME to defend the hotspot?

I am the one who brought the topic to the board. I am the one who originally scoffed at it. I am the one who pointed out the ad hoc explanations as to why they claimed it was there, eg wind shear as a proxy for temperature instead of using the actual temp data.

SSDD is just as bad as the warmers in believing his favourite dataset is the one true fact. The uncertainty in most of the readings and all of the adjustments leave us in a position where we must judge the probability of what is closest to the truth.

 

[skookerasbil]

I am a luke warmer The bad news is 1 foot of global sea level raise the next 83 years = 2-3 feet along parts of the gulf and east coast. This is very bad news and even an 1c of extra warming person like me in the next 83 years is kind of worried.

s0n.....like Ive said before........if you are worried about sea level 85 years from now, you have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time on your hands and not enough real responsibilities in life, which, by the way, fits with most all of the warmist community.

I promise you.......go out and get a real job and start having some real responsibilities in life and this shit wont bother you for a single moment. Why do you think a huge majority doesn't care a lick about global warming? Its simple............they have ALOT more important shit to worry about

 

[mamooth]

Again, the models have been very accurate. They've actually underpredicted the measured warming a bit. No honest person can dispute that. All the scientists know it, as well as all the informed people, so we're not going to be fooled by nonsense like the denier fraud on display in this thread.

Take a look. Moyhu shows exactly where the data comes from, and even gives your the R-code to make the graphs. That's totally unlike Spencer and the other deniers, who always hide all their data sources. The rational side is always open with data, while deniers aren't.

moyhu: Current global temps compared with CMIP 5

 

[Billy_Bob]

Again, the models have been very accurate. They've actually underpredicted the measured warming a bit. No honest person can dispute that. All the scientists know it, as well as all the informed people, so we're not going to be fooled by nonsense like the denier fraud on display in this thread.

Take a look. Moyhu shows exactly where the data comes from, and even gives your the R-code to make the graphs. That's totally unlike Spencer and the other deniers, who always hide all their data sources. The rational side is always open with data, while deniers aren't.

moyhu: Current global temps compared with CMIP 5

Carl Et Al adjustments are not justified.. You use a heavily adjusted data set instead of empirical evidence. And yet you persist in your pushing crap as science.. Got to laugh about you using Nick Stokes graph.. He's been shown wrong so many times its hilarious..

And then there is reality....

 

[mamooth]

Billy, when I point out deniers rely exclusively on fraud, reposting Christy's famous fraud was probably not a good idea.

Christy, of course, hides his data. Nobody knows where his mysterious balloon data comes from, and he's not saying. The real balloon data agrees with the surface tempsl, and shows strong warming. His satellite data relies on known bad data. He fudges the baseline hard, he leaves out the recent fast warming spike, he compares surface predictions to tropospheric measurements. It's a massive fudge job, which explains why the fudge-craving deniers love it so.

 

[ding]

Billy, when I point out deniers rely exclusively on fraud, reposting Christy's famous fraud was probably not a good idea.

Christy, of course, hides his data. Nobody knows where his mysterious balloon data comes from, and he's not saying. The real balloon data agrees with the surface tempsl, and shows strong warming. His satellite data relies on known bad data. He fudges the baseline hard, he leaves out the recent fast warming spike, he compares surface predictions to tropospheric measurements. It's a massive fudge job, which explains why the fudge-craving deniers love it so.

The graph you posted was fraudulent. 1. It did not show the observed data, it showed a trend instead, which is BS. 2. It did not show their projections into the future in relation to the observed data. It was totally hide the ball. You people have no shame or honesty, and you wonder why no buys your bullshit. Seriously?

 

[ding]

Again, the models have been very accurate. They've actually underpredicted the measured warming a bit. No honest person can dispute that. All the scientists know it, as well as all the informed people, so we're not going to be fooled by nonsense like the denier fraud on display in this thread.

Take a look. Moyhu shows exactly where the data comes from, and even gives your the R-code to make the graphs. That's totally unlike Spencer and the other deniers, who always hide all their data sources. The rational side is always open with data, while deniers aren't.

moyhu: Current global temps compared with CMIP 5

Have these models been very accurate?

Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy, when I point out deniers rely exclusively on fraud, reposting Christy's famous fraud was probably not a good idea.

Christy, of course, hides his data. Nobody knows where his mysterious balloon data comes from, and he's not saying. The real balloon data agrees with the surface tempsl, and shows strong warming. His satellite data relies on known bad data. He fudges the baseline hard, he leaves out the recent fast warming spike, he compares surface predictions to tropospheric measurements. It's a massive fudge job, which explains why the fudge-craving deniers love it so.

The radiosonde data is not fraudulent. Unlike your made up crap . some day you will grow up and just maybe you will use your brains.. Quoting Miriam O'Brien's lies as fact is funny as hell.

 

[mamooth]

The radiosonde data is not fraudulent.

Quite true. And it agrees with the surface data, and disagrees with UAH.

This graph shows RATPAC, the gold standard of radiosonde data, vs. old RSS, which was very close to UAH. Note the wild divergence lately. The radiosonde data flatly contradicts the UAH data you cling to. UAH reads wildly low, so nobody except desperate deniers still use it.

Sadly, Christy won't tell anyone where his balloon data came from. It clearly wasn't RATPAC.

Anyways, do you regard Christy's fudge as particularly tasty? I know you adore fudge in all of its forms, so I thought I'd ask.