No systematic errors in climate models, comprehensive statistical analysis reveals

[orogenicman]

Discuss amongst yourselves:

Global warming slowdown No systematic errors in climate models comprehensive statistical analysis reveals -- ScienceDaily

Skeptics who still doubt anthropogenic climate change have now been stripped of one of their last-ditch arguments: It is true that there has been a warming hiatus and that the surface of Earth has warmed up much less rapidly since the turn of the millennium than all the relevant climate models had predicted. However, the gap between the calculated and measured warming is not due to systematic errors of the models, as the skeptics had suspected, but because there are always random fluctuations in Earth's climate, according to a comprehensive statistical analysis.

 

[Billy_Bob]

science daily? what a load of left wing crap...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Too Funny...

Our models say our other models are correct..... What a bunch of morons.. this is peer review circle jerk at its finest... And from a left wing group of alarmists to boot..

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Garbage in garbage out...
Even assuming the models are right...which I doubt.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Finally, all the climate models assume different amounts of energy stored on Earth that is transferred to the ocean depths, which act as an enormous heat sink."

You have got to be kidding me... There has been no quantitative measurements of deep ocean with which to even get a spinet look at what our oceans are doing... but they some how have magical stones which tell them it must be true... This is nothing more than a validation paper of Trenbreths missing heat, which the fool cant find because it has been released back to space..

The left wit alarmist desperation is in full swing... another paper, which passed peer review, in the journal of Nature that is not worth using as toilet paper...

The desperation is glaring...

 

[Billy_Bob]

 

[tinydancer]

It's just jaw droppingly (not sure if that's a word but it works for me) whacked out how desperate they are. Unreal. Just unreal.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's just jaw droppingly (not sure if that's a word but it works for me) whacked out how desperate they are. Unreal. Just unreal.

I just emailed this to a few friends who do statistical analysis. One just replied telling me the paper is bull shit. He emphasized that "outputs are not empirical evidence of anything". Cant wait to see what he writes in his column about it. Most of what I have read so far and the math I have checked do not add up to anything but unsupported supposition.

A paper based on fantasy facts... And homogenized data infilling... this keeps getting worse and worse... The ADJUSTED data confirms their models outputs....

This tells me that the screwing with the data world wide is an attempt to validate their alarmism.... these people are desperately hoping that they are not found out..

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Billy_Bob]

 

[orogenicman]

Wow, 7 rapid responses in about 30 minutes by the same poster - who is apparently talking to himself. That's what I call having nothing better to do.

 

[elektra]

No errors in the climate models, it is simply that the climate models are too simplistic when modeling the complexity of Earth's climate.

 

[orogenicman]

No errors in the climate models, it is simply that the climate models are too simplistic when modeling the complexity of Earth's climate.

Right. More excuses to deny the facts. Congratulations.

 

[jc456]

No errors in the climate models, it is simply that the climate models are too simplistic when modeling the complexity of Earth's climate.

Right. More excuses to deny the facts. Congratulations.

So the statements made about models being wrong by the skeptics, is right! Thanks for agreeing with us.

"It is true that there has been a warming hiatus and that the surface of Earth has warmed up much less rapidly since the turn of the millennium than all the relevant climate models had predicted."

 

[elektra]

No errors in the climate models, it is simply that the climate models are too simplistic when modeling the complexity of Earth's climate.

Right. More excuses to deny the facts. Congratulations.

What fact, exactly?

Are you stating that there is actually a computer powerful enough to input all the data and complexities of our climate. Even the climate scientists themselves do not make that ridiculous claim.

Of course you can link to any old study to try and make your claim, if your scientist actually allows access to this super secret climate models

 

[orogenicman]

No errors in the climate models, it is simply that the climate models are too simplistic when modeling the complexity of Earth's climate.

Right. More excuses to deny the facts. Congratulations.

So the statements made about models being wrong by the skeptics, is right! Thanks for agreeing with us.

"It is true that there has been a warming hiatus and that the surface of Earth has warmed up much less rapidly since the turn of the millennium than all the relevant climate models had predicted."

Quote mining is something politicians and creationists find useful, if deceiving. Congratulations on the company you keep.

 

[orogenicman]

No errors in the climate models, it is simply that the climate models are too simplistic when modeling the complexity of Earth's climate.

Right. More excuses to deny the facts. Congratulations.

What fact, exactly?

Are you stating that there is actually a computer powerful enough to input all the data and complexities of our climate. Even the climate scientists themselves do not make that ridiculous claim.

Of course you can link to any old study to try and make your claim, if your scientist actually allows access to this super secret climate models

And neither did I. Not to worry.

GAEA Goes Petascale NCRC.GOV

 

[Billy_Bob]

 

[Crick]

Too Funny...

Our models say our other models are correct..... What a bunch of morons.. this is peer review circle jerk at its finest... And from a left wing group of alarmists to boot..

The people at Max Planck were not using models to study models. They were using mathematics. Sorry if that looks like a black box to you.

 

[Crick]

Garbage in garbage out...
Even assuming the models are right...which I doubt.

Has it occurred to ANY of you to read the article at the OP's link? It's all of a page and a half and I'm certain that at least one of you nitwits can follow it.