Scientists Debunk Climate Models

scientistsMany renowned scientists have criticized the computer models used by the global warming alarming industry, pointing out, for example, that the models omit many of the most important factors in our planet’s complex climate system: clouds, water vapor, volcanoes, ocean circulation, solar activity, and more.

Thus, it is no surprise that the models, despite making use of the most sophisticated and expensive computers, have failed miserably and have universally, stupendously exaggerated warming trends. The remarks presented below represent only a small sampling of the critiques by noted experts. For more, see our companion article, “Computer Models vs. Climate Reality.”

“Most models predict that water vapor and clouds will greatly amplify the warming due to CO2 alone. There is little observational support for these predictions. Furthermore, the models do not explain relative large climate changes in past when there was negligible combustion of fossil fuels…. The existence of large climate variability in the past has long been an embarrassment to those who claim that all climate change is due to man and that man can control the climate. To the best of my knowledge, none of the climate models designed to predict future climate have been successful in explaining these past fluctuations of the climate. If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future?”

— Dr. William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett professor of physics at Princeton University, in a statement before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, U.S. House of Representatives, May 20, 2010

 *     *     *

“In climate modeling, nearly everybody cheats a little. Although models of how the ocean and the atmosphere interact are meant to forecast the greenhouse warming of the next century, they can’t even get today’s climate right.”

— “Climate modeling’s fudge factor comes under fire,” by R.A Kerr in Science, September 9, 1994

 *     *     *

“My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models…. I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.”

— Dr. Freeman Dyson, noted author and professor emeritus of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University

 *     *     *

“The biggest problem with models is the fact that they are made by humans who tend to shape or use their models in ways that mirror their own notion of what a desirable outcome would be.”

— Dr. John Firor, senior research associate and former director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

 *     *     *

“My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit…. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”

— Dr. John Theon, former chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch, in a letter to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, January 15, 2009

*     *     * 

“In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record…. There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”

— Dr. Gerald Dickens, oceanographer, author and professor of Earth science at Rice University, in Nature Geoscience, July 13, 2009

*     *     * 

“Currently, the only forecasts are those based on the opinions of some scientists. Computer modeling was used to create scenarios (i.e., stories) to represent the scientists’ opinions about what might happen…. Since the publication of our paper, no one has provided evidence to refute our claim that there are no scientific forecasts to support global warming. We conducted an audit of the procedures described in the IPCC report and found that they clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting.”

— Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, professor at the University of Pennsylvania, noted world expert on forecasting, and founder of the International Journal of Forecasting and the International Institute of Forecasters

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (191)

  • Avatar

    Mark

    |

    ‘In climate modeling, nearly everybody cheats a little’…

    Some much more than others. Climate change should be called Weather Change which as we all know cannot be predicted accurately over hours never mind years.

    Predict the weather correctly then predict the climate correctly. Both have never been modelled accurately ever. What a waste of time and money.

    What does it matter the religious green followers will continue their sleepwalk.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      JayPee

      |

      The admitted cheating has NO place in scientific research. NONE

      The realm of cheating is politics.
      The realm of lying is politics and also
      religion-for-profit.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      David Appell

      |

      Mark: projecting long-term climate is much different than calculating weather, because the former’s long-term perspective means conservation of energy is key. Weather is far more chaotic, much more local, and varies on smaller scales. Huge difference.

      Your’s is a common mistake.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Mark Matthews

        |

        Hi David,
        Can you please expound what you mean by “long-term perspective means conservation of energy is key.”

        Also if weather has nothing to do with climate why do the warmists keep predicting worse and worse weather which does not relate to reality based upon climate modelling?

        Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    I think one mistake of climate [i]realists[/i] is to group all AGW supporters in the same category; that is [i]all[/i] fully appreciating and supporting the entire scam and the political motives behind it.

    Each group seems to have its own reason to believe and each clings to the portion of the scam that benefits them most, including scientists. However, relatively few believers comprehend or support the larger conspiracy of the world political left.

    Accordingly, well-intended but misguided or misinformed believers recoil when they are implicated in a conspiracy because they only see their “pet” reasons to believe.

    Likewise, realists err when we imply that the core hypothesis of AGW was itself a fraud. The original hypothesis was a perfectly good (albeit impossibly complex) theory that was [i]hijacked[/i] by opportunistic political leftists and associated money grabbers before it could be properly subjected to unbiased scientific process.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Mark

      |

      Yes, a fair point duly noted. I agree with you.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Yeah it sure sounds like “the science is settled ” .What a con .

    How this scam ever got this far let alone started is unbelievable .

    Politicians and rent seeking maggots are the promoters of the scam .The scientists that do climate modeling were useful and necessary bit actors to provide cover for the rounder’s fueling it .

    It is reassuring to see scientists still feel free to speak regardless of the intimidation tactics of the scary global warming promoters .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Mark

      |

      We are lucky we have the Internet otherwise I fear this hoax on all peoples of the world would have been perpetrated with impunity and without much opposition.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Current climate models are something like an incredibly complex moon rocket that has no real working blueprint.

    Each scientist takes a crack at designing parts that are intended to be assembled and attached here and there. The scientists are proud of their own part contributions (most of which are not thoroughly tested) but there are no comprehensive design specifications and many parts and systems are missing altogether.

    Still, with all this disarray we are told that we are foolish for not believing in the success of this project and that we should trust the rocket’s success with our own lives.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Mark
    You are so right . When much of the established media gets on board it is easy to see how other voices get drown out but if not for the internet .

    They screwed themselves too as the Climate Gate e-mails provided insight into what an insular group can try to do .

    We need to thank who ever invented the internet .
    Wasn’t it Allen or Alvin …something or other ?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Mark

      |

      Hi Amber,
      Yes Allen/Alvin or man bear… has never denied it and would like to think he was the daddy – but before Arpanet created by the US militery morphed into the world wide web.

      The most influencial players who were sometimes referred to as the fathers of the internet are Vinton Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee. Their are others but I can assure you when I took my degree in IT/Comp Alvin was not mentioned in any of the 5 books I read on the developement/creation/protocols/html/url etc. of the Internet.

      Maybe he visited Vinton or Tim or funded something like telephone lines I don’t know.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    At least AR4 was reasonably honest in section 2.9.1, [b]Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing[/b].

    When it comes to understanding climate drivers, 13 out of 16 [i]known[/i] forcings are listed as ‘[u]low[/u]’ to ‘[u][i]very[/i] low[/u]’.

    Until grantologists can list [b]all[/b] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them, their models are nothing more than science fiction.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      Now that they are admitting the models are garbage, they need to address the fraudulently “adjusted” data.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        David Appell

        |

        amirlach: do you understand why the raw temperature data needs to be adjusted?

        By the way, both surface temperatures and satellite temperatures are adjusted — that is, processed to remove known biases.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          amirlach

          |

          BS! The only “bias” the “adjustments” match is rising Co2.
          [quote]Yesterday I published this graph, showing almost perfect correlation between USHCN adjustments and NOAA atmospheric CO2 numbers.[/quote]
          [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/screenhunter_1618-aug-03-09-45.gif[/img]
          https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/03/proof-that-us-warming-is-mann-made-part-2/#more-114124

          Yep! there is a “Bias” at play here. It’s the piggies at the trough not wanting the slop to stop flowing.

          OINK OINK!!! 😀

          This lie is getting tiresome, almost as tiresome as the willfully stupid and corrupt a-holes who defend this Climate Lysenkoism.

          The “adjustments” are bogus.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Still running away from the meat of the science? 😆

            So let’s review…

            #1- You [i][b]cannot[/b][/i] list [u]all[/u] climate forcings, [i][b]cannot[/b][/i] order them from most to least effective, and[i][b] cannot[/b][/i] then [u]quantify[/u] them.

            #2- You [i][b]cannot[/b][/i] provide [u]even one [/u]peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            And lastly, you [i][b]cannot[/b][/i] disprove the 4,500,000,000 year precedent.

            Gosh! I thought the science was settled. 😆

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            BEST Failed Peer Review. Sorry…

            And you in now way explained why “adjustments” exactly match rising Co2. I “suggest” you did not because you cannot.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Hey amirlach! Davey displays what is what is called ‘[i][b]Willful Ignorance[/b][/i]’, all in the name of ‘[i][b]The Cause[/b][/i]’, and in support of the [i][b]multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry[/b][/i].

            He [i][b]cannot[/b][/i] answer two simple requests, or shouldn’t I say, [i][b]will[/b][/i] not. 😆

            This thread is golden, I will save it, and use it to embarrass Davey for years to come.

            But of course he could [i][b]just answer[/b][/i] the two simple requests, or stop digging. 😆

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Amirlach: Most of the peer reviewed work on temperature adjustments for both the surface and satellites was done in the 1990s, though some has continued to today. I’d suggest you look on Google Scholar.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Still running away?

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            All bull, and [b]no[/b] horns! 😆

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Your Damn Skippy they continue to this day! 😀 They have to kkep “adjusting” the data to try and fit the invalidated models, can’t have that grant tap close right?
            [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/screenhunter_1603-aug-03-05-53.gif[/img]
            [quote] This appears to be a perfect example of confirmation bias coded directly into their algorithm.

            “Our algorithm is working as designed”

            – Recent NCDC press release

            “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts”

            – Albert Einstein.
            [/quote]

            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/nasa-junk-science-worse-than-it-seems/

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Actually the net effect of adjustments is to lower the long-term global warming trend, according to BEST data analyst Zeke Hausfather.

            (BEST = Richard Muller’s temperature project, founded to reanalyze global surface temperatures.)

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Run away! 😆

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Prove your belief system, and quit squirming.

            How much do you get paid to promote the multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry Davey?

            In other words, you write CO2-phobic BS, and claim no copyrights. Right?

            Is it food stamps you use to feed that cat?

            How much Davey?

            And where are the answers to my very simple questions over ‘basic physics’ and ‘settled science’?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]Actually the net effect of adjustments is to lower the long-term global warming trend, according to BEST data analyst Zeke Hausfather. [/quote] Laughably false!
            [img] Please show us where BEST “adjustments” lowered the long term trend, other than in the past.

            And why we should care what a paper says that FAILED Peer Review?

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            The demand is for proof Davey. What is it you do not understand about that simple concept.
            Are you related to Andrzejewski ?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Funny, I cannot find where they made the corrections to the mistakes that caused this to fail Peer Review the first time.

            Thanks, but i’ll wait until I hear from Ross and JGR on that one.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            I find it incredible you keep claiming that “issues” with the satellite data make it impossible to make any conclusions when it conflicts with your Branch Carbonian Doctrine. While at the same time ignoring the “issues” with the data that seems to support it. Like BEST!

            Why is that Davey?

            JGR Reviewed and rejected BEST’s UHI Paper and found “serious shortcomings” in BEST’s methods and said “their analysis does not establish valid grounds for the conclusions they assert.”

            http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2012/07/mullers-latest-best-stuff-is-worst-so.html

            Seems the BEST data confirmed the “pause” yet Muller steadfastly denied this? 😀 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/29/uh-oh-it-was-the-best-of-times-it-was-the-worst-of-times/

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

            [quote]In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

            ‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

            However, Prof Muller denied warming was at a standstill.

            ‘We see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. There was, he added, ‘no levelling off. [/quote]
            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

            Pop Corn Futures Soared!…

            We of course now know who was right. 18+ years of no warming has completely invalidated the AWG Models and Muller’s “Best”.

            Did Muller reveal his “conflict of interest” in all of this?
            [quote] Richard Muller Stands Accused: ‘He is the front man for a geoengineering organization…which claims theirs is the only means of controlling the earth’s temperature’: ‘So they employ Dr. Muller to rubbish all the carbon control proposals — which he ably does’ [/quote]
            http://www.climatedepot.com/2011/04/04/climate-depot-round-up-on-richard-muller-scientists-trashing-mullers-workmuller-stands-accused-of-being-front-man-for-geoengineering-org-muller-responds-to-climate-depot/

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Davey your suggested readings do not measure up to scientific proof. You are incapable of understanding science, yet insist on presenting false reasoning as such.

            Mark Twain : ” Better to keep one’s mouth shut and look stupid than to open it and remove all doubt. “

  • Avatar

    David Appell

    |

    Climate models do not omit water vapor! Even climate models from the ‘ 60s showed realistic movement of water vapor around the globe.

    A major mistake in the article.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Davey is back! 😆

      OK, let’s see if the professor can handle two simple questions.

      1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

      2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

      [b]Go! [/b] 😆

      Reply

      • Avatar

        David Appell

        |

        No comment on the huge water vapor error? It’s so egregious it removes credibility from the entire article.

        Forcings are listed in the IPCC 5AR WG1 SPM, Figure SPM.5 p 14. You should have known this.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          So you cannot answer two easy questions on ‘settled science’, and are so rude as to ‘answer’ with a question.

          Typical Davey!

          A real man of faith, with no real answers.

          Care to try again? 😆

          Reply

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            It’s hardly “rude” to point to the information that answers your question. So go look it up, or not.

            Why no comment on the water vapor error?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Why not answer my questions?

            Not bright enough? 😆

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            I pointed to two easily found sources that have very good answers to both your questions.

            If you don’t care enough to go look them up, that’s your choice.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            So…

            #1- You cannot list all climate forcings, cannot order them from most to least effective, and cannot then quantify them.

            #2- You cannot provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            And lastly, you cannot disprove the 4,500,000,000 year precedent.

            Impressive! 😆

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Appeals to authority ARE NOT PROOF !

            Have you ever asked your quotable geniuses for their proof ?

            They are no different than you :

            THEY HAVE NO PROOF EITHER !

            You proselytize very well. Too bad you have no logical, verifiable nor believable dogma. You’re almost as effective as Al Sharpton. Maybe you can get a show on MSNBC.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            “Appeals to authority ARE NOT PROOF !”

            I pointed to the science, which has references to the scientific studies.

            Have you looked at it yet?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Yes I have! And what you claim does not exist. Prove me wrong.

            1- List [i][b]all[/b][/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i][b]quantify[/b][/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i][b]even one[/b][/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and [i][b]the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.[/b][/i]

          • Avatar

            JayPEE

            |

            Yes I have Davey. And they contain NO scientific method proof of your hysterical claims. It is not my fault you don’t understand.

            Have you even heard of the scientific method ?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            What about Water Vapor? The models got it wrong!
            [img]http://www.climatetheory.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Hot-spot-vs-observations-650.jpg[/img]

            If the IPCC is so sure of it’s understanding of Climate Forcing’s, why have all of their models been invalidated by observation?

            And why is it that the further these failed models drift from reality, the MORE convinced you Co2 Lysenkoist’s become?
            [img]https://informativestats.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg[/img]

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            A recent paper claims to have found significant errors in UAH’s data for the middle troposphere, and that their MT trend is much too small:

            “Removing Diurnal Cycle Contamination in Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperatures: Understanding Tropical Tropospheric Trend Discrepancies,” S Po-Chedley et al, J Clim (2015)
            http://www.atmos.uw.edu/~qfu/Publications/jtech.pochedley.2015.pdf

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            SO WHAT
            about a recent paper

            NONE OF YOU
            can prove there is greenhouse effect, ergo nothing of what you and your kind say has any foundation.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Come on genius, give it a shot! 😆

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            I already gave you citations that answer both your questions. It’s been your choice not to go read them.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            No, you have not. We went over this last night?

            Are you too stupid to follow the thread, and too stupid to understand the questions?

            Let’s try again Davey…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            If you spend 1/10th the time reading the science I pointed to instead of obsessively hectoring me with the same questions, you might learn something.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            David you cannot possibly be as stupid as you pretend.

            You claim that [b]all[/b] climate forcings have been identified, ordered from most to least effective, and [b]quantified[/b].

            You also claim to be able to produce a peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            That is utter [b]bullsh*t[/b] and you know it.

            So pony up cowboy! Admit you are a [b]fraud![/b]

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Did you look up the 5AR citation I gave you on exactly this point?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Can you read?

            You claim that [b]all [/b]climate forcings have been identified, ordered from most to least effective, and [b]quantified[/b].

            You also claim to be able to produce a peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            That is utter [b]bullsh*t[/b] and you know it.

            So pony up cowboy! Admit you are a [b]fraud![/b]

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Face it — you’re not interested in the science, or you would have looked up the references I gave last night. Or looked them up for yourself years ago.

            You’re interested in being a bully. You’re interested in insulting people and calling them names, in hectoring people just to get a rise out of it.

            I’m interested in the science. If you want to discuss that, change your tone and let me know.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Davey, I spent nearly 8 years as a geology student, was a climatology student, and have a Remote Sensing degree. So I am [b]most certainly interested in science[/b].

            But it doesn’t take a Remote sensing degree to detect your bullsh*t! 😆

            I’m not a bully, you’re just a [b]loser[/b], and a [b]fraud[/b].

            You claim that all climate forcings have been identified, ordered from most to least effective, and quantified.

            You also claim to be able to produce a peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            That is utter [b]bullsh*t[/b] and you know it.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Davey baby,
            No one has to read the conjectural easily disproved crap that you refer to.

            If you were interested in science, you’d be addressing the issue scientifically. Something you flatly refuse to do.

            Typical leftist. Always blame the opposition for what you’re doing.

            Face it, gator etc.
            I smell drewski. What do you think?

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            I get the impression you can’t follow the math in that paper. Yes?

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Your question is arrogant, ignorant and unworthy of reply.

            Goodbye ignoramus.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Typical. You’re the one who said the paper was “easily disproved,” but could not provide the claimed disproof.

            Learn some science. The greenhouse effect has been known for almost 200 years, since Fourier’s paper in 1827. Go read about the evidence.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [i]The IPCC is set to release its latest Assessment Report 5 [AR5] in about 1 month, yet the report will be dead on arrival and hopelessly out-of-date in light of recent inconvenient peer-reviewed papers published after the cut-off date for inclusion, as well as papers published before the cut-off date which the UN continues to ignore. [b]Since almost the entire report hinges on the output of climate models, and those models have recently been falsified at a confidence level of >98% over the past 15 years, and falsified at a confidence level of 90% over the past 20 years, the entire report and its Summary for Policymakers are already invalidated even before publication.[/b][/i]

            hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/why-forthcoming-un-ipcc-report-is.html?m=1

            Gee, why are the models not working Davey?

            Could it have anything to do with your failure to answer these questions?

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Face it, you are a paid Climate Change Industry lackey, and a fraud Davey.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Sorry, I don’t take my science from such blogs.

            How would you quantify climate forcings without a model?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            But you take the word of a governmental body, with conflicts of interest.

            Fraud.

            How about answering the questions first, and learn something, you paid Climate Change Industry lackey.

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            I take the work of a large community of working scientists, who are the experts.

            Last warning: if you cannot restrain yourself enough to avoid name calling, I’m done here.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            No. You are a paid Climate Industry Lackey who runs from the truth and hides behind a government body, that has built a lie entirely on models.

            That is why you refuse to answer the questions. The models are junk because you cannot model what you do not understand.

            Get it yet stupud?

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Davey is a paid shill for the Climate Change Industry!

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            How about the word of Phil Jones?

            [i]Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the “ClimateGate” affair.

            Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not significant – a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change.

            But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are “real”. Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis. Short summary: Post 1995 warming now “significant” according to Jones Story title: Global warming since 1995 ‘now significant’.[/i]

            Or NOAA?

            [i]According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%:
            “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
            According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago]. Ergo, the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming. [/i]

            Is this why you run from the questions?

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Fraud.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [i]According to the [b]NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report[/b], climate computer model simulations show that [b]if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%: [/b]

            “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

            [b]According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago]. Ergo, the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level[/b] and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming. [/i]

            We are mow past 18 years and counting.

            How are your math skills Davey the paid Climate Change Industry shill?

            Is that wht you refuse to answer questions over what your peers call ‘basic physics’ and settled science’?

            Come on genius, give it a try!

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            “How would you quantify climate forcings without a model?”

            Observations?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            These models?

            [i]According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, [b]climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%[/b]:

            “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

            [b]According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago][/b]. Ergo, [b]the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level [/b]and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming. [/i]

            We are now past 18 years and counting.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]An observation of CO2’s forcing has been done. It agrees with climate models.[/quote] So why are the Models ALL wrong?

            So quick question Davey.

            If the satellite and weather balloon data was found to have significant errors, which were Corrected in your Po Paper. Why is it that no conclusion can still be drawn from said data?

            If the IPCC AR5 has as you claimed, quantified all climate forcing’s, what is the forcing of the assumed and still conclusion-less, Co2/ Water Vapor feedback Model Prediction?

            If the Models “predicted” it, they must have quantified it in some manner. It must have a numerical value right?

            Numbers please.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Good luck amirlach! Count the number of times I asked the very same question. 😆

            Still crickets from the fraud.

            Go ahead, ask the unethical and dishonest paid shill of the multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry who attacks non-present parties, just what the UHI adjustment is.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [i]The IPCC is set to release its latest Assessment Report 5 [AR5] in about 1 month, yet the report will be dead on arrival and hopelessly out-of-date in light of recent inconvenient peer-reviewed papers published after the cut-off date for inclusion, as well as papers published before the cut-off date which the UN continues to ignore. [b]Since almost the entire report hinges on the output of climate models, and those models have recently been falsified at a confidence level of >98% over the past 15 years, and falsified at a confidence level of 90% over the past 20 years, the entire report and its Summary for Policymakers are already invalidated even before publication.[/b][/i]

            http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/why-forthcoming-un-ipcc-report-is.html?m=1

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Face it, you are a paid Climate Change Industry lackey, and a fraud Davey.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Whew… All that and still no picture of the Missing Hotspot eh? Maybe it’s on a milk jug?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]Maybe it’s on a milk jug?[/quote]

            What, with Davey’s missing brain and mythical ethics?

            Still no refutation of NV. All this mindless blathering from Davey, pointing us to failed models, written by grantologists.

            Come on Davey! Mann up!

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Then prove you do not have a monetary interest in this ‘debate’.

            Does Scientific American writer David Appell not receive income for promoting the multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry?

            Conflict of interest much? 😆

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]Study author Stephen Po-Chedley:

            We also found that the model-derived diurnal cycle correction used by RSS and NOAA is similar to our bias correction. The tropical tropospheric trend from the present study is 2.5 times that from another group, UAH. While this work shows that it is possible to understand discrepancies between MSU/AMSU datasets there are still important differences between the datasets that need further scrutiny.
            [/quote] Another MODEL?!? That agrees with NOAA “adjustments”? 😀

            [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/screenhunter_1605-aug-03-06-11.gif[/img]

            You had me going there for a second Davey! Wait? If it’s all so settled, why has every Single IPCC Model been invalidated by observations? And why do you keep dodging Gators Questions? 😀

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Wrong. The NOAA data they’re talking about is satellite data of the atmosphere. Read more closely.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [b]New FOIA emails show EPA in cahoots with enviro groups, giving them special access[/b]

            From The Washington Free Beacon, Lachlan Markay. Press release follows.

            I[i]nternal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emails show extensive collaboration between top agency officials and leading environmentalist groups, including overt efforts to coordinate messaging and pressure the fossil fuel industry.

            The emails, obtained by the Energy and Environment Legal Institute (EELI) through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, could fuel an ongoing controversy over EPA policies that critics say are biased against traditional sources of energy.

            Emails show EPA used official events to help environmentalist groups gather signatures for petitions on agency rulemaking, incorporated advance copies of letters drafted by those groups into official statements, and worked with environmentalists to publicly pressure executives of at least one energy company.

            Nancy Grantham, director of public affairs for EPA Region 1, which covers New England, asked an organizer for the Sierra Club’s New Hampshire chapter to share the group’s agenda so EPA could adjust its messaging accordingly in an email dated March 12, 2012.

            “If you could, it would great [sic] if you can send me an email describing what you would like to do in early April in NH–that way I can coordinate messaging with our air offices here and at HQ,” Grantham wrote.

            Critics of the agency and its nonprofit allies were surprised by the cooperation.

            “The level of coordination in these documents is shocking,” EELI said in a statement.

            http://freebeacon.com/emails-show-extensive-collaboration-between-epa-environmentalist-orgs/

            =============================================================

            For Immediate Release:
            January 14, 2014

            Contact:
            Craig Richardson
            Richardson@eelegal.org
            703-981-5553

            Plans by EPA and Sierra Club to cripple coal industry exposed by FOIA Documents Obtained as a Result of E&E Legal FOIA Request

            Washington, D.C. — A 2012 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal), under its former name, the American Tradition Institute, has produced several hundred documents affirming the uncomfortably close working relationship between the current U.S. Environmental Agency (EPA) and activist left-wing environmental groups in their effort to make abundant energy resources, particularly coal, much more scarce in America.

            These records come in a series of productions in litigation spawned by two specific FOIA requests — a lawsuit filed after an EPA FOIA specialist admitted she and her colleague were instructed to do no work on the requests, as EELI counsel Chris Horner attested in a sworn affidavit. Mostly e-mails between EPA top officials and the Sierra Club, the records illustrate how certain EPA employees with backgrounds working for green pressure groups serve as liaisons to those groups in advancing a shared agenda. Other documents affirm the close advisory role the pressure groups play in key EPA actions, like EPA’s recently published New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for new coal-fired plants.

            This collaboration takes place in many forms: emails providing, e.g., a list of coal plants the green groups insist any EPA standards block from coming or staying on-line, meetings at EPA and at the green groups’ offices where EPA comes to brief them, frequent conference calls, and at the Starbucks at Washington’s J.W. Marriott, across the street from EPA.

            The latter is reminiscent of the Caribou Coffee revelations about this most transparent, White House, in history arranging off-site meetings with other lobbyists to avoid signing them in to the building (see, e.g., New York Times reportage of this subterfuge, here.)

            The level of coordination in these documents is shocking, showing, for example, Sierra Club strategizing with EPA’s former green group activists, and other senior Obama appointees, about killing the coal and coal-fired electricity industries, even sharing a joke in one particular email saying EPA administrator Gina McCarthy had her “pants on fire” when assuring those parties they would remain viable under EPA’s regulations.[/i]

            It’s a consensus! 😆

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            So you still didn’t read that link at Judith Curry’s blog about why adjustments are necessary to correct biases? You probably find that science boring too, right? Easier to just dismiss it all, so you don’t have to think about anything that might get in the way.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            So what exactly is the amount of adjustment for UHI?

            And…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            I have been asking for hours, and you have run away every time.

            Too stupid to answer simple questions about ‘basc physics’ and ‘settled science’? 😆

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            There is no need to read the idiocy you propose when you will not answer the fundamental question of proof that there is a greenhouse effect as proposed by you reality deniers.

            Wake up, dope

            You can not answer the fundamental question.

            All your blathering is naught until he fundamental question is proven.

            I don’t expect you to understand.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            “Adjustments” like these?
            [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/ncdc_adjustments_vs_measured.gif?w=640&h=518[/img]

            [img]https://evilincandescentbulb.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/uhi-effect.jpg[/img]

            [img]http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/uhi4.gif[/img]

            cLIEmate UN-scientist’s “adjust” Rural upwards to match Urban.
            [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/long_rural_urban_raw.png[/img]

            [img]http://www.urbanheatislands.com/_/rsrc/1272907297013/home/Boston_urban_area.png[/img]

            And now David Apel will explain why these “adjustments” are “necessary”, in Three… Two… One?… David?…

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Amir, these are just a couple of graphs you found laying around somewhere, obviously made by people in their basements.

            And you don’t even give links to show where they came from.

            Up your standards! There are a million climate deniers, all trying to fool you with this graph or that. You should be taking your science from peer reviewed work by the experts, not from whatever crappy graph agrees with your prejudices.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]Up your standards! [/quote]

            Up yours! 😆

            [i]According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, [b]climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%[/b]:

            “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

            [b]According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago][/b]. Ergo, [b]the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level [/b]and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming. [/i]

            We are now past 18 years and counting.

            Davey still plays with broken models.

            [img]http://www.collectair.com/images/gulfhawkdime.jpg[/img]

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Your Right of Course! NCDC, the EPA, and NIWA are all “crappy” (your words) graphs that agree with me:D

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Since you don’t list where the graphs came from (and still haven’t), they are doubtful. One is clearly from someone’s spreadsheet, not a paper or reviewed publication.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Doubtful as your broken models? 😆

            [img]http://www.collectair.com/images/gulfhawkdime.jpg[/img]

            [i]According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, [b]climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%[/b]:

            “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

            [b]According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago][/b]. Ergo, [b]the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level [/b]and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming. [/i]

            We are now past 18 years and counting.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            What about it? The real question is why and how the adjustments are made, not whether some graph looks like CO2 or the Consumer Price Index.

            What study does this graph come from, that explains its methodology?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            It comes from NOAA’s server. They have never “explained” the methodology. The usual “adjustment” is to fit data to an invalid Model.

            [quote]According to the V2 specs, they use the same TOBS algorithm as in V1. So it seems safe to assume that stations with no missing data after 1990 need no adjustments.[/quote]
            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/just-how-bad-is-the-ushcn-data-tampering/

            [quote]Up until now the adjustments have made no sense, because they didn’t appear to correlate to anything in the real world. But now we can see that correlate almost perfectly with the amount of CO2 in atmosphere. Red below is CO2 and blue is the USHCN adjustments.[/quote]
            [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/screenhunter_1603-aug-03-05-53.gif[/img]

            And you said… [quote]What about it? The real question is why and how the adjustments are made, not whether some graph looks like CO2 or the Consumer Price Index.[/quote]
            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/03/proof-that-us-warming-is-mann-made-part-2/#more-114124

            Why indeed? Because “they” didn’t appear to correlate to anything in the real world…

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Ask the unethical and dishonest paid shill of the multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry who attacks non-present parties, just what the UHI adjustment is.

            He won’t answer my questions. Probably still too busy playing with broken models.

            [img]http://www.collectair.com/images/gulfhawkdime.jpg[/img]

            [i]According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, [b]climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%[/b]:

            “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

            [b]According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago][/b]. Ergo, [b]the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level [/b]and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming. [/i]

            We are now past 18 years and counting.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            “It comes from NOAA’s server. They have never “explained” the methodology.”

            I doubt it. But now it’s clear you have no idea of what’s behind that graph, and didn’t care to find out. You took it to say what you wanted it to say, so you posted it. Again, typical.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Explain this…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. [b]This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.[/b]

            And this…

            [i]According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, [b]climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%[/b]:

            “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

            [b]According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago][/b]. Ergo, [b]the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level [/b]and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming. [/i]

            We are now past 18 years and counting.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            “The usual “adjustment” is to fit data to an invalid Model.”

            You didn’t read the Zeke Hausfather et al link on Curry’s blog, did you? Clearly not.

            They explain very clearly why adjustments are necessary to correct biases in the data — for gaps where temperature stations break, or aren’t read, or use a new technology, or are read at a different time of the day, and more.

            How would YOU handle such discontinuity issues?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Issues like this?

            [i]According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, [b]climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%[/b]:

            “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

            [b]According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago][/b]. Ergo, [b]the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level [/b]and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming. [/i]

            We are now past 18 years and counting.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            And just by an incredible coincidence all these “adjustments” to correct biases in the data — for gaps where temperature stations break, or aren’t read, or use a new technology, or are read at a different time of the day, all just happen to exactly match the Co2 profile? 😀

            This beggars belief even for you.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Does Davey the paid shill for the multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry [i]not know[/i] the UHI adjustment?

            Or is he just really stupid? 😆

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Judging by Daveys refusal to answer to [i]any[/i] of my questions, he is both stupid, and a paid shill for the multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry.

            But he still loves broken models! 😆

            [img]http://www.collectair.com/images/gulfhawkdime.jpg[/img]

            [i]According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, [b]climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%[/b]:

            “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

            [b]According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago][/b]. Ergo, [b]the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level [/b]and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming. [/i]

            We are now past 18 years and counting.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            That’s just one more question Davey the paid shill for the multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry refused to answer.

            What is the UHI adjustment? 😆

            The weather forecaster says every night “[i]a few degrees cooler in outlying areas[/i]”.

            Then there are the other two issues that Davey the paid shill for the multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry just is not ethical enough to answer.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            What warming? 😆

            [i]Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
            “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
            Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
            ‘Bottom line: the ‘ no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
            __________________
            Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
            “… This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”
            __________________
            Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct. 2009
            “Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
            __________________
            Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
            “At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that,”
            __________________
            Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
            “It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,”….” We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”
            __________________
            Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
            “I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
            __________________
            Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
            [Q] B – “ Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
            [A] “ Yes, but only just”.
            __________________
            Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research – 2010
            “…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…”
            __________________
            Dr. B. G. Hunt – Climate Dynamics – February 2011
            “Controversy continues to prevail concerning the reality of anthropogenically-induced climatic warming. One of the principal issues is the cause of the hiatus in the current global warming trend.”
            __________________
            Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
            “…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”
            __________________
            Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September 2011
            “There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”
            __________________
            Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012
            We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
            Source: metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012
            __________________
            Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013
            “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”
            __________________
            Dr Doug Smith – Met Office – 18 January 2013
            “The exact causes of the temperature standstill are not yet understood,” says climate researcher Doug Smith from the Met Office.
            [Translated by Philipp Mueller from Spiegel Online]
            Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013
            “…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”
            __________________
            Dr. Judith Curry – House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment – 25 April 2013
            ” If the climate shifts hypothesis is correct, then the current flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two,…”
            [/i]

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Referencing your self again? 😀

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Just pointing to a plot of some easily obtained data. Go ahead and download it — I gave links — and calculate. You’ll get the same result I found.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Answer the questions Davey, or zip it, and admit you are simply a paid lackey for the mult-trillion dollar Climate change Industry.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            ok LIAR

            Why will you not address the question that

            THERE IS NO PROOF OF A GREENHOUSE EFFECT AS STATED BY THE AGW ALARMISTS

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            NOAA “adjusts” the data to fit the model. No wonder the get the same results. 😀

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [i]__________________
            Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013
            “… the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”
            __________________
            Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013
            “The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”
            __________________
            Met Office – July 2013
            “ The recent pause in global warming, part 3: What are the implications for projections of future warming?
            ………..
            Executive summary
            The recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century.”
            Source: metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/r/Paper3_Implications_for_projections.pdf
            __________________
            Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July 2013
            “Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,”
            __________________
            Dr. Kevin Trenberth – NPR – 23 August 2013
            “ They probably can’t go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,”
            __________________
            Dr. Yu Kosaka et. al. – Nature – 28 August 2013
            “ Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
            Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century…”
            __________________
            Professor Anastasios Tsonis – Daily Telegraph – 8 September 2013
            “We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”
            __________________
            Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
            “The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist…
            __________________
            Dr. Gabriel Vecchi – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
            “A few years ago you saw the hiatus , but it could be dismissed because it was well within the noise,” says Gabriel Vecchi, a climate scientist…“Now it’s something to explain.”…..
            __________________
            Professor Matthew England – ABC Science – 10 February 2014
            “Even though there is this hiatus in this surface average temperature, we’re still getting record heat waves, we’re still getting harsh bush fires…..it shows we shouldn’t take any comfort from this plateau in global average temperatures.”
            __________________
            Dr. Jana Sillmann et al – IopScience – 18 June 2014
            Observed and simulated temperature extremes during the recent warming hiatus
            “This regional inconsistency between models and observations might be a key to understanding the recent hiatus in global mean temperature warming.”
            __________________
            Dr. Young-Heon Jo et al – American Meteorological Society – October 2014
            “…..Furthermore, the low-frequency variability in the SPG relates to the propagation of Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) variations from the deep-water formation region to mid-latitudes in the North Atlantic, which might have the implications for recent global surface warming hiatus.”
            __________________
            Dr. Hans Gleisner – Geophysical Research Letters – 2015
            Recent global warming hiatus dominated by low latitude temperature trends in surface and troposphere data
            Over the last 15 years, global mean surface temperatures exhibit only weak trends…..Omission of successively larger polar regions from the global-mean temperature calculations, in both tropospheric and surface data sets, shows that data gaps at high latitudes can not explain the observed differences between the hiatus and the pre-hiatus period….
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062596/abstract
            __________________
            ==
            Shuai-Lei Yao et al – Theoretical and Applied Climatology – 9 January 2015
            The global warming hiatus—a natural product of interactions of a secular warming trend and a multi-decadal oscillation
            ….We provide compelling evidence that the global warming hiatus is a natural product of the interplays between a secular warming tendency…..
            http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-014-1358-x
            [/i]

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [i]H. Douville et al – 2015
            The recent global-warming hiatus: What is the role of Pacific variability?
            The observed global mean surface air temperature (GMST) has not risen over the last 15 years, spurring outbreaks of skepticism regarding the nature of global warming and challenging the upper-range transient response of the current-generation global climate models….
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062775/abstract
            __________________
            Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth 11 July 2014
            Seasonal aspects of the recent pause in surface warming
            Factors involved in the recent pause in the rise of global mean temperatures are examined seasonally. For 1999 to 2012, the hiatus in surface warming is mainly evident in the central and eastern Pacific…….atmospheric circulation anomalies observed globally during the hiatus.
            http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n10/full/nclimate2341.html%5B/i%5D

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Prove me wrong on 1 & 2, or quit you yapping. The burden of proof is on you nutcases.

        • Avatar

          JayPee

          |

          Try introducing some logic to your comments Davey. No one here is responsible for a ” water vapor error ” if there is one. I’d appreciate it if before making your dogmatic declaration that you’d submit scientific proof that there is a greenhouse effect or even one greenhouse gas.

          I expect you to ignore the request because
          THERE IS NO PROOF !

          Reply

      • Avatar

        David Appell

        |

        Re: #2 — Did you even try to look for why scientists think climate change is manmade?

        See the IPCC 5AR WG1 SPM Fig SPM.6 p 18, and references therein.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          Here we go again! 😆

          So you cannot answer two easy questions on ‘settled science’, and are so rude as to ‘answer’ with a question.

          Typical Davey!

          A real man of faith, with no real answers.

          Care to try again? 😆

          Reply

        • Avatar

          JayPee

          |

          What scientists Davey ? Can you name them ? With 97% of the world on your side, surely you can provide an impressive list.

          I’d appreciate it if you’d stop lying and stop the cheap appeals to nonexistent authority.

          Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      If the models showed “realistic” movement of water vapor, why are they wrong?
      [img]http://www.climatetheory.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Hot-spot-vs-observations-650.jpg[/img]

      I suggest you read what a real scientist, IE a non cLIEmate Lysenkoist has to say about model failures.
      [quote]Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said, “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” [/quote]

      Have anything besides Fiddled Data and Invalidated Models there Davey? :zzz

      Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          Still pussin’ out like your cat…

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          Prove your belief system, and quit squirming.

          How much do you get paid to promote the multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry Davey?

          In other words, you write CO2-phobic BS, and claim no copyrights. Right?

          Is it food stamps you use to feed that cat?

          And where are the answers to my very simple questions over ‘basic physics’ and ‘settled science’?

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Oh Mann! What a Schmidthead!

            [i]Obviously, Gavin Schmidt had a close “current or previous personal or professional relationship with Dr. Mann that could be considered a conflict of interest”. Indeed, it is hard to contemplate a technical expert, other than Mann himself, who would be more thoroughly conflicted in the investigation of scientific misconduct allegations against Mann. Given the resulting compromise to its independence, it is surprising, to say the least, that EPA would so thoroughly ignore Schmidt’s well-known personal and professional relationships with Mann by asking him to act as a technical expert and/or reviewer in a supposed “investigation” of scientific misconduct allegations against Mann or that Schmidt would not recuse himself from acting as a technical expert and/or reviewer of such an investigation.
            In previous CA posts, I’ve challenged the claim in Mann’s pleadings that EPA had actually carried out an “investigation” into scientific misconduct allegations” against Mann (as opposed to taking the narrow, clever and legalistic position that the EPA Endangerment Finding has not relied on hide-the-decline in Mann’s section of IPCC TAR or Mann et al 1998-99, thus making the Mann controversy moot in respect to the Endangerment). Be that as it may, today’s post shows that any such investigation was not “independent“, since the EPA’s evaluation of evidence related to its supposed investigation of scientific misconduct allegations against Mann unwisely used a technical expert (Gavin Schmidt) who was thoroughly conflicted by well-known personal and professional relationships with Mann.
            Schmidt’s involvement with the EPA denial decision and its supporting documents also places an interesting new perspective on EPA’s use of Mann’s controversial nodendro reconstruction to supposedly refute the divergence issues – a tactic that originated at realclimate (see here). Soon after his meeting with the EPA officials, Schmidt defended Mann et al 2008, not just at Real Climate, but in controversy at a third party blog, claiming, as he had for months, that Mann’s use of contaminated data didn’t “matter” to any of the reconstructions. However, on or before July 27, 2010, a couple of days before the release of the RTP documents, Schmidt learned that his previous defences of Mann’s nodendro reconstruction were untrue and that Mann’s nodendro reconstruction (which had been relied upon by EPA) had, after all, been compromised by Mann’s use of the contaminated portion of the Tiljander data. This placed Schmidt in an exceeding awkward position in respect to EPA, since he now knew that the RTP documents made false claims in respect to Mann’s nodendro reconstruction, but it was now only hours away from their release. [/i]

            http://climateaudit.org/2014/10/18/gavin-schmidt-and-the-epa-denial-decision/

        • Avatar

          amirlach

          |

          Sorry, but your propaganda site has zero credibility here.[quote]The founders of Realclimate include Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Stefan Rahmstorf, Rasmus Benestad, Eric Steig, and a couple of others.[/quote] Serial data “adjusters” and hockey stick handlers? Oh My… You will convince absolutely no one using these guys as sources.

          http://climateaudit.org/2005/10/02/389/

          http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html

          [quote]So it’s not yet possible to use the observational data to make a judgement about models in this arena.[/quote] So… The classic hot spot prediction (A) compared to 28 million weatherballoons (B). Which can measure temperature to a tenth of a degree all failed to measure this mythical 2-3 degree Hot Spot all of the alarmist models “predicted” and it’s still not possible to make a judgment?

          How wide of an error bar do you need? 😀

          Priceless! 😀

          Reply

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            I suggest you read the Po-Chedley article, and

            “Tropospheric temperature trends: history of an ongoing controversy”
            Peter W. Thorne et al
            Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change
            Volume 2, Issue 1, pages 66–88, January/February 2011
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.80/full

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            I ask Davey for answers, and this is what I get…

            Care to answer my queries Davey, or just keep bullsh*tting?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Who is your sugardaddy David?

            Prove your belief system, and quit squirming.

            How much do you get paid to promote the multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry Davey?

            In other words, you write CO2-phobic BS, and claim no copyrights. Right?

            Is it food stamps you use to feed that cat?

            And what about answering my questions?

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Natural climate change denying paid lackey bullsh*tter.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            In what way does a study looking at Satellite Data refute 28 Million empirical observations made by Weather Balloons?

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Where was the balloon data published?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Hadley Center. I suggest you try your Goggle Schooler.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            You do realize the Po Paper you keep waving around used Radiosonode data to Calibrate the model-derived diurnal cycle correction’s?

            Might want to check there… 😀

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Don’t try to turn the table Davey. You’re the one making claims w/o proof. None of your detractors must submit proof further than your lack of foundation.

            Do you get it ?

            Do you understand logic ?

            Have you ever heard of logic ?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            It’s behind a Pay Wall and most likely talks about what model they used to refute observations. :zzz

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            So let’s review what Davey [i][b]cannot[/b][/i] answer…

            #1- You [i][b]cannot[/b][/i] list [u]all[/u] climate forcings, [i][b]cannot[/b][/i] order them from most to least effective, and [i][b]cannot[/b][/i] then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            #2- You [i][b]cannot[/b][/i] provide [i][u]even one[/u][/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            And lastly, you [i][b]cannot[/b][/i] disprove the [u][i][b]4,500,000,000 year precedent.[/b][/i][/u]

            So [i]what[/i] do you have Davey? A whole lot of model driven drivel.

            Models that [i][b]cannot[/b][/i] reproduce our climate, and [i][b]cannot[/b][/i] be relied upon for predictions or ‘[i]projections[/i]’.

            But with [i][b]paid natural climate change denying lackeys[/b][/i] such as yourself, they can support the [i][b]multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry[/b][/i].

            Come on Davey! Where is it you make your money? 😆

            Why can’t you answer questions about ‘basic physics’ and ‘settled science’?

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Gator, I agree .

            But why not continually force the issue forward that there is no foundation for anything he says. Namely, after more than 40 years of the bemoaning of a greenhouse effect, there is not an iota of scientific proof for it. And flying in the face of the amount of money and resources squandered trying to establish it.

            And jerks like Davey will claim it as ” gospel truth ” until they die or shut up by some other means.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Davey has no ethics, and no way of refuting the 4,500,000,000 year precedent.

            This is why with each passing year, the ‘believers’ in CAGW keep abandoning the ranks of ‘The Cause’.

            They see little Davey’s, who admit through their silence and failure to disprove NV, that they have zero science to back their claims.

            [i]”Turtles all the way down”[/i]

            Davey and his ‘peers’ make used car salesmen look honest. 😆

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Come on Gator

            The scholastic philosophers were right. Ethics comes only after a solid understanding of logic.

            Davey has no understanding of mathematics either. The entirety of the Principia Mathmatica is no more than a subset of symbolic logic

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            You mean green math like this?

            [i]The California High-Speed Rail Authority has estimated the project’s year-of-expenditure cost at $68.4 billion ([b]2011 estimate[/b])[/i]

            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_RailWikipedia

            SFO to LAX Round-trip = $137

            http://www.orbitz.com/flights/from-San_Francisco-to-Los_Angeles.o4468.d4309/

            That equals 499,270,073 Tickets

            [i]More than 6 million people fly between the Los Angeles basin and San Francisco Bay per year[/i]

            http://cahsr.blogspot.com/2009/10/la-sf-nations-second-busiest-air-route.html

            For round trip, cut that in half to 3 million.

            So my back of the envelope figures show that for the cost of building the high speed rail, [i]you could fly everyone for free for roughly 166 years[/i].

            Of course projects like this can easily double in actual cost (See: The Big Dig)

            But who is counting? 😉

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            No, actually they “adjusted” data to fit a MODEL!

            And what do they use to calibrate the diurnal adjustments
            derived from a GCM ? Radiosonode’s ! 😀 The same radiosonodes that refuted the Co2 Water Vapor positive feedback signature. What we like to call the MISSING HOT SPOT!
            [quote]Study author Stephen Po-Chedley:

            We also found that the model-derived diurnal cycle correction used by RSS and NOAA is similar to our bias correction. The tropical tropospheric trend from the present study is 2.5 times that from another group, UAH…

            By comparing MSU/AMSU datasets with radiosondes,
            several studies suggest that diurnal adjustments
            derived from a GCM and/or other bias corrections lead to
            a warm bias in the trends for lower-tropospheric temperaturedata
            (TLT) forRSS. [/quote] So, first they program the Co2/Water Vapor positive feedback assumption into the models. When the observations completely refute the assumption, they first claim that Wind Meters are better than Thermometers at measuring temperature. Then when that one gets laughed off the board, they then claim a Model refutes observations, hilarity ensues one again.

            Now they are saying the data is so bad that one cannot say one way or another?

            And the Models are still programed with this imaginary positive feedback?

            Trouble is, the humidity has been decreasing for decades, contrary to model “predictions”. Supporting the Radiosonode data and missing Hot Spot.
            [img]http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/GlobalRelativeHumidity300_700mb.jpg[/img]

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            “So, first they program the Co2/Water Vapor positive feedback assumption into the models.”

            Wrong — neither is an “assumption” — both emerge from the physics, from the partial differential equations that describe the physics of climate. Here’s one model’s description:

            “Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 3.0),” NCAR Technical Note NCAR/TN–464+STR, June 2004.
            http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/docs/description/description.pdf

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Oh look! Davey the paid shill for the multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry is still playing with broken models! 😆

            [i]According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, [b]climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%[/b]:

            “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

            [b]According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago][/b]. Ergo, [b]the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level [/b]and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming. [/i]

            We are now past 18 years and counting.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Read it. More data “adjusting” to match a model. :zzz

            [quote]Study author Stephen Po-Chedley:

            We also found that the MODEL-derived diurnal cycle correction used by RSS and NOAA is similar to our bias correction. The tropical tropospheric trend from the present study is 2.5 times that from another group, UAH. While this work shows that it is possible to understand discrepancies between MSU/AMSU datasets there are still important differences between the datasets that need further scrutiny.[/quote]

            Boring! So some NOAA Model has a bias 2.5 times bigger than another group and he agrees with NOAA’s Model? Where is that Missing Hot Spot?

            Where in the Poo Headly Paper does it…
            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            Or…

            2- Provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            NOAA is a serial data manipulator. Can’t be trusted.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            I’m not surprised you find real science “boring.” That’s the most revealing think you’ve written tonight.

            You don’t seem to understand the paper. If the tropical middle troposphere data is wrong, it can’t be used to make a judgement about any hot spot.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [u][i][b]WHAT SCIENCE?[/b][/i][/u]

            For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and[i][b] the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.[/b][/i]

            Where is the refutation of NV?

            Please provide[i][b] even one[/b][/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            Without this, we [i][b]must[/b][/i] assume what we are seeing is as [i][b]natural[/b][/i] as sunrises and sunsets.

            Enough hand waving and references to [i][b]little piggies at the trough of the multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry.[/b][/i]

            Provide the refutation or admit you and your peers are frauds.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Gator

            They are already proven liars for they cannot prove the primary premise of their so-called reasoning.

            No amount of data annunciation will ever change the FACT that there is NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT.

            And I’m willing to stand corrected when so much as one of these idiots steps forward with scientific method proof.

            I will never have to stand corrected.

            There is NO PROOF.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Frauds don’t need proof, they just need an audience. I checked on little Davey’s publications, and it seems he has cashed quite a few checks from his peddling this CO2-phobic BS.

            http://www.davidappell.com/publications.html

            For a ‘science writer’, he sure seems to be one sided. 😆

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Gator ok, I agree

            And what you have stated is precisely why it is possible for the democrat party to win elections in the USA.

            Without the lying and deception, only idiots would vote for them.

            But there’s plenty of that too. In some areas, you’re guaranteed 30% of the vote just by being on the demorat party line. This is blind faith voting and the catholics, jews, and blacks might never figure out how they’ve been used.

            Those blind faith idiots deserve what they get. But I don’t just because they exist in my district.

            The same can be said for G-d on earth O’bama. Those who blindly voted for him deserve to get what they have surrendered.

            The rest of us don’t deserve his depravity and hatred of all things American.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            What the Hotspot is still missing? If none was found the Models are still WRONG! Un-validated models and a still failed prediction. Yeah BORING as hell.

            Maybe the Missing Hot Spot is on your milk carton or hiding in the deep ocean’s with Trenberths Missing Heat.

            No where in your “Paper” which uses an un-validated MODEL. Does it refute the 28 million weather balloons, which failed to detect any Hot Spot, despite being accurate to a tenth of a degree.

          • Avatar

            David A

            |

            David Appel says, “You don’t seem to understand the paper. If the tropical middle troposphere data is wrong, it can’t be used to make a judgement about any hot spot.”
            ===================
            DA, he understood it fine.

            ” Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results… Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”

            — Dr. John Theon, former chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch, in a letter to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, January 15, 2009

            You see D.A., your “team” presented one reason to the public for the sea ice decrease, you blamed CO2. You ignored or minimized studies showing other factors, ad publicly blamed it all on CO2. Yet in explaining Antarctic ice growth you came up with many reasons, to explain it all away, but ignored the fact that Antarctica was mostly cooling, and Southern ocean ssts were cooling.

            Then you presented to the public only one reason for the rise in T coming out of the 1979 Ice Age scare. Again, that one reason was human produced CO2. Then came the pause, and you suddenly found ocean currents and ENSO cycles, and fifty other reasons to explain the “Pause”, many of them contradictory to each other.

            Top to bottom of the atmosphere the models badly fail to meet observations.
            The projected harms of CO2 wrong from the get go, and doubly wrong as they are based on the to warm models, ALL are failing to manifest, while the KNOWN benefits of CO2 are definitely manifesting daily, in every crop throughout the world.

            You guys, the “team” working for the “cause” have lost all credibility.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]You don’t seem to understand the paper. If the tropical middle troposphere data is wrong, it can’t be used to make a judgement about any hot spot.[/quote]

            Big “if”.

            I think you do not “understand” how important the Radiosonode data is. You keep talking about satellite data being wrong while dodging the Radiosonode data that found no Hot Spot.

            Seriously dude! You need to actually read the papers your claiming we aint. 😮

            And what do they use to “calibrate” the diurnal adjustments
            derived from a GCM ? Radiosonode’s ! 😀

            [quote]Study author Stephen Po-Chedley:

            We also found that the model-derived diurnal cycle correction used by RSS and NOAA is similar to our bias correction. The tropical tropospheric trend from the present study is 2.5 times that from another group, UAH…

            By comparing MSU/AMSU datasets with radiosondes,
            several studies suggest that diurnal adjustments
            derived from a GCM and/or other bias corrections lead to
            a warm bias in the trends for lower-tropospheric temperature data
            (TLT) forRSS. [/quote]

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            “Big “if”.”

            It’s a peer reviewed published paper that needs to be taken seriously. Scientists will hash it out, but UAH’s MT trend is the outlier of the three (UAH, RSS, NOAA).

            “I think you do not “understand” how important the Radiosonode data is. You keep talking about satellite data being wrong while dodging the Radiosonode data that found no Hot Spot.”

            If you have a specific paper that proves this, then give a link — I’d like to read it. The Thorne et al paper I cited yesterday says the data are not precise enough to distinguish whether the hot spot in there or not.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Re: Big “if”.

            I assume you’re aware of a long line of errors found in the UAH group’s work, going back almost two decedes. Almost every one of those errors had the effect of *increasing* their trend. They seem to consistently error on the cool side. That’s suspicoius, especially given Christy and Spencer’s “skepticism.”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Corrections_made

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Yet strangely the 28 Million Radiosonodes agreed with the satellites.

            If “corrections” were made why do you keep claiming no conclusions can be made from this data they spent so much time and energy finding errors in and “correcting”?

            If all the Models predicted this Tropospheric warm spot, there must be some measurable effect at work in the REAL WORLD right? A quantifiable effect?

            What is it? Sherwood, Allen and Po and Co must have a number to plug into those failed models. Go! Let’s hear it.

            Quantify!…

          • Avatar

            Ted

            |

            But it’s not at all suspicoius to you that almost every adjustment to the thermometer data causes an increase in the trend?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Suspicious to Davey? Hell no! It’s what he calls a trend, and money in the bank.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Amir, perhaps you should read Po-Chedley. This is from their second page:

            “Our understanding of tropical tropospheric temperature trends
            is complicated by the fact that tropical radiosonde stations are limited in number, their trends are cold biased,
            and the bias magnitude cannot be accurately determined
            (e.g., Sherwood et al. 2005; Randel andWu 2006; Titchner et al. 2009). Complications with radiosonde measurements reinforce the need to ensure that satellite records are unbiased
            in order to advance our understanding of climate and climate change.”

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Limited in Number? 28 Million is limited in number? 😀

            Cold Biased? Compared to what? Failed Models? Fiddled data?

            What they measured was temperature to a tenth of a degree, the Hot spot was “predicted” to be 2-3 degrees. So as they passed through the vertical axis they never detected this Hot Spot.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Come on amirlach!

            28 Million is not [i]infinite[/i]! 😆

            But Davey has an unlimited number of these he wants to talk about…

            [img]http://www.collectair.com/images/gulfhawkdime.jpg[/img]

            [i]According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, [b]climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%[/b]:

            “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

            [b]According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago][/b]. Ergo, [b]the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level [/b]and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming. [/i]

            We are now past 18 years and counting.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Where are links to the papers with your claims about radiosonde data?

            Po-Chedley et al refer to the following for the problems found with radiosondes:

            Sherwood et al. 2005; Randel and Wu 2006; Titchner et al. 2009.

            All are listed in their references.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [i]According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, [b]climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%[/b]:

            “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

            [b]According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago][/b]. Ergo, [b]the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level [/b]and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming. [/i]

            We are now past 18 years and counting.

            Davey still plays with broken models.

            [img]http://www.collectair.com/images/gulfhawkdime.jpg[/img]

            Running away again? 😆

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Sherwood again? Sheesh!… The guy who shifted his graph so Zero was Red? 😮

            Logic dictates, that if they used the Weather Balloon data, they had access to it. Why would you need to ask me for it? Read the paper you keep telling everyone else to read.

            Or… Look at the bottom of the Graph showing how the Hotspot was NOT found here.
            https://climatism.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/the-missing-hot-spot/ It actually lists where the data can be found. Seeing as your Goggle Schooler seems to be busted. 😀

            Climate Science, Gov and Hadley Radiosonode Record, like I told you already…

            And why exactly does one need to Peer Review an empirical observation?

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            It’s not Sherwood’s fault if you and Nova can’t read the scale on a graph.

            I knew you didn’t have any radiosonde papers to point to. Or any radiosonde analyzed data. The Evans — Force X! — link HAS NO ERROR BARS. That’s the whole issue about the MT data — it has large error bars, and so allows no conclusions.

            It’s always the same with people like you — any crappy graph will do, any crappy number will do, because the only thing you ever read is in the bubble of like-minded deniers that all bobble their heads up and down in the same direction. You “know” there is no hot spot because that’s what’s bobbled. God forbid you should actually read some papers on the subject.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [b]Stay classy Davey![/b]

            BTW – Your models are [i]broken[/i]…

            [i]According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, [b]climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%[/b]:

            “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

            [b]According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago][/b]. Ergo, [b]the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level [/b]and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming. [/i]

            We are now past 18 years and counting.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]I knew you didn’t have any radiosonde papers to point to. Or any radiosonde analyzed data.[/quote] Oh so it has to be “analyzed”? Adjusted too? Tickled till it pees?

            The 28 Million Radiosonode’s agree with the Satellites. The outlier is your refuted Sherwood Allen and Po and Co.

            Not my fault your being willfully stupid and cannot use your Gooogle Goggles to find Hadley on the World Pipe.

            Tthe Data is from Hadley. Not that hard Davey.
            http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/hadat2/hadat2_monthly_tropical.txt

            http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadrt/

            Seems the link on that third graph is broken.
            http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-all.pdf.

            As for your Sherwood Allen paper.
            [quote]The authors – or at least the media – have claimed that a new method to “measure” the tropical tropospheric temperatures has removed all contradictions between the theoretical and empirical warming rates in the troposphere.

            Recall that the greenhouse-dominated models predict rapid warming in the troposphere, roughly 10 km above the equator. The satellite measurements (UAH MSU, RSS MSU) show an actual warming rate that is at least 10 times slower than the theoretical predictions. The data from balloons and radiosondes they carry, for example the Hadley Center data, confirm the satellite figures. Detailed numbers will be discussed below.

            That seems to be a problem. Every acceptable solution to this problem must either find serious errors in both the satellite and balloon data or a serious error in the theoretical models (or both).

            Steven Sherwood and his pre-PhD student, Robert Allen, use a different strategy. They pretend that the discrepancy doesn’t exist at all. How do they do it? Well, they want you to believe that the measurements of the temperatures don’t exist. Instead, they propose their own, idiosyncratic, elaborated “measurement” of the tropospheric temperatures. Well, there is one additional immediate problem: it’s not really their own method, as we will see. 😉

            Roger Pielke SrSherwood & Allen vs Pielke Sr

            They look at some patterns in the thermal (?) westerly winds, manipulate them to obtain a rather continuous function, and claim that this function of the winds data is … a measurement of temperature that is apparently better than the thermometers. Their method is not really original: it is a small subset of the methods discussed by Roger Pielke Sr and two co-authors in 2006 and especially by Pielke Sr and four co-authors in 2001. See also Pielke’s comments about his priority.
            [/quote]
            http://motls.blogspot.ca/2008/06/sherwood-allen-and-radiosondes.html

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            It’s always the same with people like you — any crappy Model will do, any crappy prediction will do, because the only thing you ever read is in the bubble of like-minded alarmists that all bobble their heads up and down in the same leming like direction. You “know” the IPCC has Quantified and listed in order every single cLIEmate Forcing because that’s what’s bobbled. God forbid you should actually admit that every single Co2 based model prediction has failed, and you would then have to actually read and follow the Scientific method.

            Which clearly states.
            [quote]The final step in the scientific method is the conclusion. This is a summary of the experiment’s results(failed models), and how those results(failed models) match up to your hypothesis.
            You have two options for your conclusions: based on your results, either
            (1) you CAN REJECT the hypothesis, or
            (2) you CAN NOT REJECT the hypothesis.[/quote]

            Cause then you would have to admit that the complete and utter failure of the model predictions means one must REJECT the Hypothesis.

            It’s the scientific method Davey! I can’t help it if your in complete denial of the science. 😥

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            This Sherwood? [quote]Sherwood 2008: Where you can find a hot spot at zero degrees.[/quote] The one so desperate to “find” the Hot Spot you keep trying to wave away? Now they are claiming the data they once claimed proved them right, is now so corrupted no conclusion can be made from it? 😀

            Settled Science at it’s finest! Model Predictions with no SKILL!
            [img]http://images.onesite.com/capcom-unity.com/user/dubindoh/monster_hunter/monhunprobs_memes/5b8a959d3eb90f2cd53ad8b2b5fd87a5.jpg?v=154800[/img]

            [quote]Peek closely at the scale of the graph. Note the color of zero – that’s right — if there was no global warming in the entire atmosphere, no change, nothing at all happening, the Sherwood interpretation would look like one giant hot-spot:[/quote]
            http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/sherwood-2008-where-you-can-find-a-hot-spot-at-zero-degrees/

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            It’s not my fault Joanne Nova can’t read a figure correctly. (The hotter regions are dark red, not red or light red.)

            Is this how you usually read papers — find a sentence some denier blogged about, and repeat it without looking at the paper yourself?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [b]Classy![/b] Attack a woman, who is not here to rebut you BS.

            Come on genius! [i]Answer the questions[/i], or is the money too good to be ethical and honest?

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. [b]This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.[/b]

            Enough of your broken models and cowardly attacks you fraud.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            The Pielke Sr paper is about a very technical issue that is not what we’re talking about, which again is that data do not allow a firm conclusion either way because it is not precise enough. And that it looks like the UAH MT trend is too small by a factor of about 3. (Three! And again on the low side.)

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            But this is what we are talking about…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. [b]This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.[/b]

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            That paper clearly says… Sherwood and Thorn 2008 are REFUTED!

            You claimed IPCC AR5 had quantified ALL Climate Forcings, now you say the data, which Po and Co. Supposedly found errors in is so bad it is worthless? So they missed one? 😀

            If they found the errors they should be able to correct them right? Errors would be numerical right?

            Should be simple math to correct the data, why can’t they?

    • Avatar

      AndyG 55

      |

      quote from Eric Betz, 2nd April 2015
      “Traditional global climate models have avoided directly simulating the role that clouds play in Earth’s climate systems. “

      So your comment on water vapour is, like all your other comments, monumentally WRONG !!

      You are nothing by a shyster, with zero understanding of what is going on in ‘the science”

      A wannabe.

      Now answer Gator’s questions or STFU !!

      Reply

      • Avatar

        David Appell

        |

        Andy: Clouds aren’t water vapor. Water vapor isn’t clouds.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          Davey is back! Let’s see if he answers simple [b][i]settled science[/i][/b] questions this time?

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          Go for it genius! 😆

          Reply

        • Avatar

          AndyG 55

          |

          So you admit that water and water vapour are NOT, at present, properly modelled.

          Thank you for getting something right for once.

          parametrizations = fudge factors.. you use them when you “don’t know” something.

          Believe me, rotten Appell, I know way more about mathematic modelling than you ever will. !!

          Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Even if science somehow could be “settled” it would not be so until every scientist agreed. It looks like there are more scientists every day who are growing a pair and finally acknowledging how deeply flawed these models are.

    [i]“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. [b]Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
    [/b]
    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

    ― Michael Crichton[/i]

    Reply

    • Avatar

      David Appell

      |

      Crichton was badly wrong. There is consensus about nearly all science, except what is at the edges where research is occurring. Classical mechanics, Newtonian gravity, thermodynamics, wave optics, electromagnetics, quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, electroweak theory, quantum chromodynamics, general relativity — all are accepted as sturdy models of their subjects. That’s not to say all questions have been answered. But there is consensus for a reason — experimental evidence. It’s the same for the consensus on man’s influence on climate.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        If the science is so very settled, and there is a ‘consensus then simply…

        1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

        2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

        There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        Prove your belief system, and quit bullsh*tting.

        God you are pathetic! 😆

        Reply

      • Avatar

        JayPee

        |

        CHRICTON WAS RIGHT

        Science is not about consensus. Proof admits you to a scientific discussion. Opinion does not.

        Davey think of how easy it is. All you have to do is submit the proof of a greenhouse effect and sit back and watch all the so-called ” deniers ” fade away in embarrassment. What could be easier ?

        I’ll sit here in semi-orgasmic anticipation of your proof.

        Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        Invalidated Models and Fiddled Data are not “Experimental Evidence”!

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          Once data has been adjusted, it is no longer data, it is an artifact of analysis.

          The grantologists point to artifacts, and claim it as ‘data’.

          da·ta ˈdadə,ˈdādə/ noun
          1-[i] facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.[/i]

          Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Davey has a long history of mental issues…

    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/david-appell-completely-loses-his-mind/

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/03/can-david-appell-be-humble-anymore-was.html

    http://www.steynonline.com/6234/the-silencing-of-science

    [i]David Appell (@davidappell) | October 9, 2014 at 10:18 pm |
    Most everyone else thinks C&W is an improvement. But, by now I’m not surprised that you don’t.

    I never said the recent ocean heating papers were “the last word.” But, as Gavin wrote, if they are true — and they were published in the most prestigious journal on the planet — your climate sensitivity upper bound changes significantly. Not to even mention them is biased.

    You like to write about ethics, Judith. I wonder what you would say about her ethics if, say, an IPCCish scientist ignored the most recent data available. I’m nearly certain you would accuse her of a serious ethics violation.

    curryja | October 9, 2014 at 10:27 pm |
    David, my last message to you on this. All of these latest papers provide data within the error bounds of our analysis. The whole point of our paper is the analysis of uncertainty.[/i]

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/09/my-op-ed-in-the-wall-street-journal-is-now-online/

    And Davey has yet to address the core of the problem with his claims that go against 4,500,000,000 years of precedence…

    1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Come on Davey! [i]Think![/i]

      1- List [u]all[/u] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

      2- Please provide[i] even one[/i] ([i]just [b]one[/b][/i]!) peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      I’ll be generous, and give you another 24 hours to try and find those answers. I’ve already given you all night, so what the heck.

      Hey! Why not try Google Scholar! 😆

      You bore me, but maybe your cat will play with you.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Frederick Colbourne

    |

    The article omitted Professor Christopher Essex, Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario (my alma mater).

    Dr Essex is an expert in this field unlike at least one person mentioned in the blog article.

    His book with Ross McKitrick Taken By Storm is available on Amazon.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      JayPee

      |

      Thank you Mr Colbourne.

      I expect you to be attacked by a proven idiot named David Appell.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    AGW promoters, funded by billions of taxpayer dollars, have an endless supply of data to throw against the wall – hoping something will stick long enough to get the political and economic shifts they seek.

    The premise of settled science is simply antithetical to science itself. Anyone who would call themselves a scientist and then use the [i]settled science[/i] argument have exempted themselves from scientific debate, regardless of how much random data they may sling.

    I would be much more inclined to entertain debate points of those with whom I disagree if I were not first called a “denier” (a religious term), told the science was [i]settled[/i] (an oxymoron), and then told that deeply flawed computer models say that we need to restructure free market economies, surrender national sovereignty, and pare back Constitutional liberty (an absolute absurdity).

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    # David Appell 2015-04-10 14:10
    [i]I take the work of a large community of working scientists, who are the experts.

    Last warning: if you cannot restrain yourself enough to avoid name calling, I’m done here.[/i]

    He takes the word? That is called ‘faith’, and is not scientific.

    What do his ‘experts’ say? They say the models are crap.

    [i]According to the [b]NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%: [/b]

    “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The [b]simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more,[/b] suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    [b]According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago]. Ergo, the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level[/b] and it’s [b]time to revert to the null hypothesis[/b] that man made CO2 is not causing global warming.[/i]

    We are now past 18 years and counting.

    How are [i]your [/i]math skills Davey the paid Climate Change Industry shill?

    Is that why you [i]refuse to answer[/i] questions over what your peers call ‘[i]basic physics[/i]’ and [i]settled science[/i]’?

    Come on genius, give it a try! 😆

    1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    Paid shills never question their masters.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    This quote sums up the failed attempt to muddy the waters around the refuted AGW “Fingerprint” AKA the Hot Spot.
    [quote]stpaulchuck says:

    April 10, 2015 at 8:28 pm

    “our observing system is inadequate” Wow, just wow. It can’t be that your theory is all wrong. It HAS to the measuring system. These are some of the most self deluded people on the planet.
    [/quote] And the reply from Gator…
    [quote] gator69 says:

    April 10, 2015 at 8:38 pm

    There was a geosciences conference held a number of years ago, that had every branch of the Earth Sciences plus ‘climate experts’, but it was heavy on geologists. At one point, one of these ‘climate experts’ was giving a presentation and actually said that because the observations were not matching the climate models, there must indeed be something wrong with the observations.

    There was copious loud laughter, and the presenter appeared to be confused by it.
    [/quote]

    Yep! The UAH and Radiosonode data Davey says was riddled with errors and “fixed”, is still “inconclusive”. And seemingly un-quantifiable, even by the mighty IPCC AR5!

    Nothing to see here move along!…

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    One little headline about Scientists Debunking Climate Models and it becomes apparent what a nerve that strikes .

    It is going to be a monumental challenge for the promoters of the scary global warming scam to silence all those scientists who are no longer prepared to be bullied into fashioning bullets for the campaign .

    Global Warming ,..Climate Change …What Ever .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      JayPee

      |

      Yes Amber, but Drewski-Appell is dormant now having had his wings and horns clipped. But he will regroup and return by whatever appellation and regurgitate the same things as though they are proof anew of his idiocy and requiring profound proof of his inanity before he backs off.

      Typical of the left. They can say anything and unless you instantly prove them to be profoundly and conclusively wrong, their opinion must carry the day.

      The left is not entitled to debate because of this arrogant supremicist presumption of automatic righteousness prior to debate.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      You have to understand Amber, attacking alarmist models is like attacking a Baptist’s Bible.

      Models are all they have ever had, aside from analytic artifacts, to which they refer as ‘data’.

      Davey and his cat are dependent upon paychecks from their peers, paid shills of the multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry.

      Grantologists were certain in their faith that the globe would continue to warm, and made bold predictions, much like Harold Camping, who staked his reputation on Jesus Christ return to Earth on May 21, 2011.

      [i]According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that [b]if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%[/b]:

      “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. [b]The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more,[/b] suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

      [b]According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago]. Ergo, the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level [/b]and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that [b]man made CO2 is not causing global warming[/b]. [/i]

      They were overconfident. They overestimated their own knowledge, underestimated our intelligence, and unwittingly set up their own demise with misplaced cocksure strident statements.

      Unlike Camping, these frauds are still alive, and still dependent upon the multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry. So they are left with two choices.

      1- Admit they were wrong and become irrelevant, as well as possibly facing civil legal repercussions. (RICO?)

      2- Try to keep the scam going, so as not to lose all credibility, and keep cashing in on this massive government subsidized papier-mâché golden goose.

      Fear is now their greatest motivator, and there is nothing so dangerous, or desperate, as a trapped predator.

      Their end is near.

      Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.