Models Fail so badly NOAA now looking at reality......

[SSDD]

Since when did proof of AGW require an exact match of human produced CO2 and that which is measured in atmosphere year to year?

You claimed that we were responsible for the increase in CO2..there are 7 peer reviewed, published papers which say we are not...

 

[SSDD]

If you are trying to point out that your position is based on politics and not actual science, don’t bother...it is obvious.

 

[otto105]

Since when did proof of AGW require an exact match of human produced CO2 and that which is measured in atmosphere year to year?

You claimed that we were responsible for the increase in CO2..there are 7 peer reviewed, published papers which say we are not...

That was just a blog post. Not a listing of peer reviewed scientific papers.

 

[otto105]

Since when did proof of AGW require an exact match of human produced CO2 and that which is measured in atmosphere year to year?

You claimed that we were responsible for the increase in CO2..there are 7 peer reviewed, published papers which say we are not...

Refute this.

Humans are Primarily Responsible for the Rise in CO2 | EARTH 104: Earth and the Environment

 

[SSDD]

Since when did proof of AGW require an exact match of human produced CO2 and that which is measured in atmosphere year to year?

You claimed that we were responsible for the increase in CO2..there are 7 peer reviewed, published papers which say we are not...

That was just a blog post. Not a listing of peer reviewed scientific papers.

You really are a doofus aren’t you? They are all peer reviewed published papers...click on any of the red titles and you will be taken to the papers. What’s the matter, never seen a peer reviewed published paper and dont know what they look like? Guess that’s how it goes when you get your “science” from the media.

 

[SSDD]

Since when did proof of AGW require an exact match of human produced CO2 and that which is measured in atmosphere year to year?

You claimed that we were responsible for the increase in CO2..there are 7 peer reviewed, published papers which say we are not...

Refute this.

Humans are Primarily Responsible for the Rise in CO2 | EARTH 104: Earth and the Environment

I give you seven peer reviewed published studies saying that our influence on the atmospheric CO2 is undetectable and you show me an opinion piece and think you have proved your point? You are pathetic and laughable..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Evidence of Climate Change


NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

post the piece that shows the statistics of man vs natural.

The Heritage Foundation has posted this..

View attachment 264590

The graph is of GHG in our atmosphere and only comprises 1.98% of our total atmosphere.

Lets put this in perspective of the atmosphere as a whole;

View attachment 264592

A PDF from the NCPA?

And how does pharmacy organization judge this?

You cant even read scientific organization names correctly... Even when its spelled out....

 

[Wuwei]

I give you seven peer reviewed published studies saying that our influence on the atmospheric CO2 is undetectable and you show me an opinion piece and think you have proved your point? You are pathetic and laughable..

Some of the sites you quoted are not peer reviewed and are "pay to publish" "journals".
Not very credible.

.

 

[otto105]

You cant make this stuff up.

apparently you did make stuff up.

The Warming Meme is collapsing and cooling in all records is now evident by empirical observations. They can no longer hide their AGW failure. There is panic in the AGW political gamer's and they are now desperate to explain it away.

This story is about prediction not being what it should be and scientist are about predictions. They will make the necessary changes. It doesn't mean global warming is not happening.

There is nothing about cooling off in this story

Quote - Cooling in all records is now evident by EMPIRICAL observations

The question that a cooling trend happens does not mean that global warming is not real. Even if you stick your head out the window and there is a lot of snow and rain is a current weather condition. To assume that it indicates that Global warming isn't happening is making a decision on a short term weather event. Weather changes.

Global warming is entirely compatible with these events as it is just weather and empirical observation shows that it changes. Climate change Models looks at long term trends from past to present and it show that the globe is still, unfortunately, warming. The previous models were consistent and there is some concern that the newer modes are off. They just have to make changes and understand why

Major scientific associations all agree

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver"

now should I believe just because it cold outside that global warming doesn't exist because today I need to wear a coat

or should I believe what most scientist are saying who have study the subject matter for years and use science methods to access and support their conclusions. They use a long term approach which makes it more scientific.

In the end they are saying CO2 emissions should be controlled, do not have a problem with that as smog is real and is can be cause by man

Wow, they say you just can't make thing up....then this post came along.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It appears that resident warmist ignoramus still can't provide cogent replies to posted science stuff, the ones from the NOAA, IPCC and more.

I will make this simple:

Does the "hot Spot exist?

YES or NO

Lets see if he can make a decent reply......

 

[SSDD]

It appears that resident warmist ignoramus still can't provide cogent replies to posted science stuff, the ones from the NOAA, IPCC and more.

I will make this simple:

Does the "hot Spot exist?

YES or NO

Lets see if he can make a decent reply......

According to them it does...it is the kind of hot that cant be measured with a thermometer...it can only be measured with an anemometer....and according to wuwei's hypothesis the upper tropospheric hot spot resides a few inches off the ground. Somehow I thought the upper troposphere was higher...

 

[Wuwei]

According to them it does...it is the kind of hot that cant be measured with a thermometer...it can only be measured with an anemometer....and according to wuwei's hypothesis the upper tropospheric hot spot resides a few inches off the ground. Somehow I thought the upper troposphere was higher...

Liar.

.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Since when did proof of AGW require an exact match of human produced CO2 and that which is measured in atmosphere year to year?

You claimed that we were responsible for the increase in CO2..there are 7 peer reviewed, published papers which say we are not...

Refute this.

Humans are Primarily Responsible for the Rise in CO2 | EARTH 104: Earth and the Environment

This one is easy... They used a model that has no predictive capability thus any assumptions made from it are erroneous. What you guys passes off as science is incredible.

 

[otto105]

Since when did proof of AGW require an exact match of human produced CO2 and that which is measured in atmosphere year to year?

You claimed that we were responsible for the increase in CO2..there are 7 peer reviewed, published papers which say we are not...

Refute this.

Humans are Primarily Responsible for the Rise in CO2 | EARTH 104: Earth and the Environment

This one is easy... They used a model that has no predictive capability thus any assumptions made from it are erroneous. What you guys passes off as science is incredible.

Yeah! Damn actual science from scientists when one can just check breitbart....

 

[Billy_Bob]

Since when did proof of AGW require an exact match of human produced CO2 and that which is measured in atmosphere year to year?

You claimed that we were responsible for the increase in CO2..there are 7 peer reviewed, published papers which say we are not...

Refute this.

Humans are Primarily Responsible for the Rise in CO2 | EARTH 104: Earth and the Environment

This one is easy... They used a model that has no predictive capability thus any assumptions made from it are erroneous. What you guys passes off as science is incredible.

Yeah! Damn actual science from scientists when one can just check breitbart....

You really are a moron...

Here is Dr Roy Spencer's work on the models and their predictive failures..

What is funnier still; you think there is greater confidence in your models as they diverge further from reality.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Since when did proof of AGW require an exact match of human produced CO2 and that which is measured in atmosphere year to year?

You claimed that we were responsible for the increase in CO2..there are 7 peer reviewed, published papers which say we are not...

Refute this.

Humans are Primarily Responsible for the Rise in CO2 | EARTH 104: Earth and the Environment

This one is easy... They used a model that has no predictive capability thus any assumptions made from it are erroneous. What you guys passes off as science is incredible.

Yeah! Damn actual science from scientists when one can just check breitbart....

I see that OTTO has ignored Post 250

Apparently he is afraid to get caught in a single issue discussion, not even a yes or no answer was simple enough for you.

Otto is the real Chicken Little......

 

[mamooth]

Here is Dr Roy Spencer's work on the models and their predictive failures..

Billy does so love Spencer's fraudulent graph. It's all he has, so he posts it over and over. What else can any denier do? The cult has given them marching orders, and they don't dare disobey.

Back in reality, the models have been excellent.

Climate model projections compared to observations

Of course, the success of the models is just icing on the cake. The directly measured data alone proves AGW theory quite nicely, no models needed. There is no natural explanation for the directly measured stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands. Those are smoking guns for human-caused warming, and they disprove any "It's a natural cycle!" theories.

 

[mamooth]

The hotspot discussion looks to have all been lost in the recent board crash, so let's do it again. Let's use a different paper, Sherwood and Nishant (2015). The hot spot is there.

Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2) - IOPscience
---
Temperature trends in the updated data show three noteworthy features. First, tropical warming is equally strong over both the 1959–2012 and 1979–2012 periods, increasing smoothly and almost moist-adiabatically from the surface (where it is roughly 0.14 K/decade) to 300 hPa (where it is about 0.25 K/decade over both periods), a pattern very close to that in climate model predictions.
---

That's based on radiosonde data. The paper also explains the problems with satellite data, so replying with "but look at the satellite data!' would make not make any sense.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Here is Dr Roy Spencer's work on the models and their predictive failures..

Billy does so love Spencer's fraudulent graph. It's all he has, so he posts it over and over. What else can any denier do? The cult has given them marching orders, and they don't dare disobey.

Back in reality, the models have been excellent.

Climate model projections compared to observations

Of course, the success of the models is just icing on the cake. The directly measured data alone proves AGW theory quite nicely, no models needed. There is no natural explanation for the directly measured stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands. Those are smoking guns for human-caused warming, and they disprove any "It's a natural cycle!" theories.

There you go again with YOUR DECEPTION and LIES... Put up the radiosondes of our atmosphere against your model.... You lying little ass hole. You wont do it because it would show your fraud and deception... And your still using the model that has trained away all prediction, so all we see is the trained portion that matches your delusions.. You are one lying piece of crap.. Let me guess, you got this from Miriam's site (AKA;Slandering Sue at Hotwhopper). She is always good for a big lie and slanderous statements...

Why do you use this graph knowing it is fully a deception? You've been told many times by me and others here. I want to know why you lie!

 

[mamooth]

There you go again with YOUR DECEPTION and LIES... Put up the radiosondes of our atmosphere against your model....

Done that. They match well. For example, RATPAC is very close to RSS, and RSS is very close to the models.

So, where did Spencer's "weather balloon" data come from? It's wildly different from the RATPAC data, which is considered the gold standard for radiosondes. That's how I know you and Spencer are lying. Your data isn't anywhere close to the real data.

You can demonstrate you're not a fraud. Just show where Spencer's "weather balloon data" comes from. Alternately, you can have another screaming meltdown, which will confirm to everyone that you're upset about being caught pushing fraud again.