250 Peer Reviewed Papers in 2015 Alone Cast Doubt on AGW Hypothesis

[Billy_Bob]

The (missing) tropical hot spot « Climate Dialogue

so I can find it later. interesting discussion by three scientists in the field.

Mears of RSS makes a good case for Willis' theory, and the IRIS effect too.

Sherwood seems to want to 'just stop talking about it, already'

Christy decimates the models again

"The bottom line is that, while I have some ideas based on some evidence, I don’t know why models are so aggressive at warming the atmosphere over the last 34 years relative to the real world. The complete answer is probably different for each model. To answer that question would take a tremendous model evaluation program run by independent organizations that has yet to be formulated and funded.

What I can say from the standpoint of applying the scientific method to a robust response-feature of models, is that the average model result is inconsistent with the observed rate of change of tropical tropospheric temperature - inconsistent both in absolute magnitude and in vertical structure (Douglass and Christy 2013.) This indicates our ignorance of the climate system is still enormous and, as suggested by Stevens and Bony, this performance by the models indicates we need to go back to the basics. From this statement there is only a short distance to the next - the use of climate models in policy decisions is, in my view, not to be recommended at this time."

There is a reason I like John Christy and Roy Spencer.. They dont mince words.. They tell it like it is.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The (missing) tropical hot spot « Climate Dialogue

so I can find it later. interesting discussion by three scientists in the field.

Mears of RSS makes a good case for Willis' theory, and the IRIS effect too.

Sherwood seems to want to 'just stop talking about it, already'

Christy decimates the models again

"The bottom line is that, while I have some ideas based on some evidence, I don’t know why models are so aggressive at warming the atmosphere over the last 34 years relative to the real world. The complete answer is probably different for each model. To answer that question would take a tremendous model evaluation program run by independent organizations that has yet to be formulated and funded.

What I can say from the standpoint of applying the scientific method to a robust response-feature of models, is that the average model result is inconsistent with the observed rate of change of tropical tropospheric temperature - inconsistent both in absolute magnitude and in vertical structure (Douglass and Christy 2013.) This indicates our ignorance of the climate system is still enormous and, as suggested by Stevens and Bony, this performance by the models indicates we need to go back to the basics. From this statement there is only a short distance to the next - the use of climate models in policy decisions is, in my view, not to be recommended at this time."

There is a reason I like John Christy and Roy Spencer.. They dont mince words.. They tell it like it is.

Finally some honesty!!

What I can say from the standpoint of applying the scientific method to a robust response-feature of models, is that the average model result is inconsistent with the observed rate of change of tropical tropospheric temperature - inconsistent both in absolute magnitude and in vertical structure (Douglass and Christy 2013.) This indicates our ignorance of the climate system is still enormous and, as suggested by Stevens and Bony, this performance by the models indicates we need to go back to the basics. From this statement there is only a short distance to the next - the use of climate models in policy decisions is, in my view, not to be recommended at this time."

 

[Crick]

Chrisy and Spencer. The folks who got you deniers all in a lather lying about the performance of the CMIP5 models and destroyed their own professional reputations at the same time. JUST the folks I'd go to for an opinion on GCMs.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Chrisy and Spencer. The folks who got you deniers all in a lather lying about the performance of the CMIP5 models and destroyed their own professional reputations at the same time. JUST the folks I'd go to for an opinion on GCMs.

Ok Mr Peabody, SHOW ME YOUR FACTS THAT REFUTE CHRISTY'S SCIENCE!

Your demonetization of Spencer and Christy need to be backed up with facts. All you got is adhomenim attack and character assassination WITHOUT A SHRED OF FACTs.. I know who the real liars are...

 

[Crick]

Demonetization? You might want to look that up.

You've seen this repeatedly. I expected you to pretend you hadn't. No disappointment there.

HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception

 

[IanC]

Demonetization? You might want to look that up.

You've seen this repeatedly. I expected you to pretend you hadn't. No disappointment there.

HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception

a character assassination hit piece. poor Sou foams at the mouth.

from the link-

model performance and actual measurements. I believe this was also presented to a congressional subcommitee. same type of information as Sou castigated Spencer for.

also from the link-

showing the obvious disconnect between models and observations as the altitude rises.

climate science says that the ratio of warming should be ~1.4 to 1. if the models are showing 1.4 then what are the observations showing? likewise, if the observations are showing 1.4 then what are the models showing? this is how climate science can claim the models are 'correct', or at least 'broadly consistent'.

 

[IanC]

there have been a couple of papers that said they found the 'hotspot' by substituting wind shear as a proxy for temperature.

as they used to say on Sesame Street....which one of these things is not like the others, which one of these things is not the same. hahahahahaha

 

[SSDD]

Demonetization? You might want to look that up.

Whoooo....crick finds a misspelled word....I can see him now doing his victory dance over it.

I guess when you are crick, you take whatever small victories you can get whenever they come along....even if they are imagined victories.

You've seen this repeatedly. I expected you to pretend you hadn't. No disappointment there.

Of course we have seen it repeatedly...but seeing bullshit repeatedly doesn't make it true. Got any actual truth to support your claims?

 

[Crick]

None of you have ever cast any doubt on these charges. And IanC, the best of you, has tried. Spencer and Christy's concoction regarding the performance of the CMIP5 models is utter crap.

 

[IanC]

None of you have ever cast any doubt on these charges. And IanC, the best of you, has tried. Spencer and Christy's concoction regarding the performance of the CMIP5 models is utter crap.

if you are claiming the models are not diverging from reality, then simply state your case (in your own words) and post up your evidence. then stick around to defend you position.

 

[SSDD]

None of you have ever cast any doubt on these charges. And IanC, the best of you, has tried. Spencer and Christy's concoction regarding the performance of the CMIP5 models is utter crap.

if you are claiming the models are not diverging from reality, then simply state your case (in your own words) and post up your evidence. then stick around to defend you position.

Fat chance... first of all, crick doesn't have any words of his own..second, the chance of him sticking around when he begins to suspect that he can't defend his position is nil.

 

[mamooth]

if you are claiming the models are not diverging from reality, then simply state your case (in your own words) and post up your evidence. then stick around to defend you position.

Look at Post #107. That was you making up excuses so you could ignore the actual data. You've already announced loudly and proudly that the data doesn't count. It's what you do, on every topic. No matter what the evidence is, you've got an excuse as to why it doesn't count. The cult has trained you well.

Given that you've already announced that the data doesn't count, what's the point in speaking with you? You're not rational. You're a cultist. You're a waste of everyone's time.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Demonetization? You might want to look that up.

You've seen this repeatedly. I expected you to pretend you hadn't. No disappointment there.

HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception

That hit piece by Slandering Sou.... (aka: Miriam O'Brien) HotWHopper is called that because she lie's big.. Where are your facts? all I see is adhom attacks in that piece. Worse still, is she cant back up her assumptions...

 

[Billy_Bob]

if you are claiming the models are not diverging from reality, then simply state your case (in your own words) and post up your evidence. then stick around to defend you position.

Look at Post #107. That was you making up excuses so you could ignore the actual data. You've already announced loudly and proudly that the data doesn't count. It's what you do, on every topic. No matter what the evidence is, you've got an excuse as to why it doesn't count. The cult has trained you well.

Given that you've already announced that the data doesn't count, what's the point in speaking with you? You're not rational. You're a cultist. You're a waste of everyone's time.

107 was exposing the lies of O'Brien... using a proxy that she cant confirm or redo to prove anything.. Wind as a proxy? holy crap snagletooth, you really are desperate.

 

[IanC]

Look at Post #107. That was you making up excuses so you could ignore the actual data. You've already announced loudly and proudly that the data doesn't count. It's what you do, on every topic. No matter what the evidence is, you've got an excuse as to why it doesn't count. The cult has trained you well.

Given that you've already announced that the data doesn't count, what's the point in speaking with you? You're not rational. You're a cultist. You're a waste of everyone's time.

Post 107 shows the results of using wind shear as a proxy for temps gives a result that is 50% higher than all the other datasets of measured results.

I believe I have every right to laugh at asinine papers that discard real measurements of temp and use estimates produced solely to give favoured results.

 

[Crick]

None of you have ever cast any doubt on these charges. And IanC, the best of you, has tried. Spencer and Christy's concoction regarding the performance of the CMIP5 models is utter crap.

if you are claiming the models are not diverging from reality, then simply state your case (in your own words) and post up your evidence. then stick around to defend you position.

The models are doing what the models are doing. I have posted up ACTUAL model performance data repeatedly. The point is that Spencer and Christy's concoction re the CMIP5 models is crap and I have posted the evidence of that charge here repeatedly. What we have NOT seen is anyone successfully defending Spency and Christy against Sou's comments.

 

[Crick]

if you are claiming the models are not diverging from reality, then simply state your case (in your own words) and post up your evidence. then stick around to defend you position.

Look at Post #107. That was you making up excuses so you could ignore the actual data. You've already announced loudly and proudly that the data doesn't count. It's what you do, on every topic. No matter what the evidence is, you've got an excuse as to why it doesn't count. The cult has trained you well.

Given that you've already announced that the data doesn't count, what's the point in speaking with you? You're not rational. You're a cultist. You're a waste of everyone's time.

107 was exposing the lies of O'Brien... using a proxy that she cant confirm or redo to prove anything.. Wind as a proxy? holy crap snagletooth, you really are desperate.

Do you believe the results of AR5 are dependent on using wind shear as a temperature proxy?

 

[IanC]

None of you have ever cast any doubt on these charges. And IanC, the best of you, has tried. Spencer and Christy's concoction regarding the performance of the CMIP5 models is utter crap.

if you are claiming the models are not diverging from reality, then simply state your case (in your own words) and post up your evidence. then stick around to defend you position.

The models are doing what the models are doing. I have posted up ACTUAL model performance data repeatedly. The point is that Spencer and Christy's concoction re the CMIP5 models is crap and I have posted the evidence of that charge here repeatedly. What we have NOT seen is anyone successfully defending Spency and Christy against Sou's comments.

I have repeatedly answered your questions about Sou's slander. you dont seem to be able to converse with any understanding of the subject.

first things first. do you deny the results of the various climate models, which are kept at various repositories like KNMI Climate Explorer. are you claiming that 'deniers' are changing the data in ways other than normalizing the start time and value to make comparison possible. eg do you think the trends have been changed?

 

[Crick]

I am claiming that Sou's analysis of Spencer and Christy's deception is accurate. I have posted a dozen other analyses of model performance, NONE of which match Spencer and Christy.