Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
That makes 2 post with broken links to files..Dr Spencer and I disagree.... They failed spectacularly!They didn't fail. Failing means there wrong. Falling within a margin of error is not being wrong. In fact, establishing that there are margins of error in measurements is one of the first lessons I had in my high school science class. As more information is gathered you can, and they have reduced the margin for error.Increasing the margin of error is acknowledging that more research needs to be done. Not an indication that the research is flawed. Especially because no other decent hypothesis is put forth by anyone.Actually, predictive failures with highly complex data are to be expected. That's why models provide ranges.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
Also, I find it insanely ironic that someone who is on record saying he doesn't care if a person subjects himself to peer review is criticizing my choice of sourcing.
Increasing the margin of error is not a satisfactory answer to predictive failure..especially regarding an entity as observable and measurable as the atmosphere and the movement of energy through it... Increasing the margin of error is only an admission that the hypothesis is fatally flawed...increasing the margin of error is only a means of life support for a failed hypothesis...in pseudoscience, any number of predictive failures are acceptable so long as the funding continues...
When predictions fail, it is nothing but an acknowledgement that the research, and the hypothesis are flawed.....where they correct, there wouldn't be predictive failures.
Actually the theory I provided you is far better than the radiative greenhouse effect...like I said, it not only predicts the temperature here without the need of any fudge factor, but accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...a feat that the greenhouse hypothesis can't even begin to accomplish...
Politicians and activists don't like it though because the composition of the atmosphere is mostly irrelevant...the temperature of any given planet is the product of incoming solar radiation, gravity and the density of the atmosphere...if CO2 can't be portrayed as a demon, imagine the political power and money that would evaporate almost immediately... The very fact that politics is so incestuously intertwined with climate science should raise red flags to any person with an critical thinking skills at all...
View attachment 267858
Worse yet are your AGW cult leaders who think as the divergence gets wider your confidence is above 95% for being right? This is the upside down world of AGW..
126 Climate models failed empirical review, without exception.