Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why read your peer reviewed papers...they are demolished in hours by mere statisticians.
Laughable, simply laughable. You're starting to show your colors trolling blunder...
Your mere statistician has not "demolished" ANY papers. He made a minor correction to ONE paper that HAD NO EFFECT ON THE PAPER'S CONCLUSIONS.
And since then, perhaps a few thousand papers have come out providing support for AGW for which your hero Steve has not had a word to say.
Pathetic, simply pathetic.
ps: "Why read your peer-reviewed papers". Now there's a fellow in search of the truth. Unfortunately, it's the 'truth' he already manufactured in his own, uneducated head.
pps: Did Dave ASK you for your help or is it just that you see him floundering?
Some actual data on the accuracy of IPCC projections
The Copenhagen Diagnosis
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-12.PDF
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_3.pdf
Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
Some actual data on the accuracy of IPCC projections
The Copenhagen Diagnosis
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-12.PDF
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_3.pdf
Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
Here is some actual data on the accuracy of the IPCC. Way back in 1980, the IPCC told us that the expected warming from a doubling of CO2 was going to be somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees.
When the fourth assessment came out, they narrowed the expected temperature increase to 2.0 to 4.5 degrees In this latest assessment, they now tell us that the expected temperature increase is gong to be 1.5 to 4.5 degrees.
Now here is the tough part...the part where you use your brain and apply it to some critical thinking.
What did computers look like back in 1980 in contrast to computers today? Were you around in 1980? Remember tape drives that actually used cassette tapes? Disk drives the size of dishwashers that held squat? Boxes and boxes of data cards to run the simplest programs? Is any of this ringing a bell? Your smart phone has more computing power than 99.5% of the computers that existed in 1980 and a couple of modern computer gaming consoles run in series have more power than anything from the 80's.
And what did computer programs look like back then when contrasted to modern software? Remember Pong? Space Invaders? Donky Kong? Pac Man? This was three years before the the holy grail of computer software was produced.....Dragon's Lair. Those represented the pinnacle of computer software at the time. Top of the line software back then ran on a few thousand lines of code. How many lines of code do you think it takes to run your smart phone today? How many lines in a climate model? Millions? Tens of millions?
So here we are 30+ years later, gains in computer power, and speed that simply could not be imagined back then, hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars spent by the field of climate "science" and what have they produced? An estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2 that is right back to where they were in 1980 running the simplest of computer models on machines so primitive that they couldn't even handle the most basic children's software today. No improvement at all after 30 years and hundreds of billions of dollars down the toilet.
The funny, and tragically sad thing is that there are still people who place any trust and faith at all in the field at all.
Oh, I almost forgot. About that critical thinking thing that you guys are so bad at....why do you suppose that after 30+ years of unimaginable increases in computer speed and power...software that is orders of magnitude more complex than back in the good old days, and hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars spent on "research".....climate science has not narrowed its estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2 by even a fraction of a degree?
Think real hard.....your answer will speak volumes about you if you have the cojones to answer at all.
So, the math in C* gets different results than the math in Fortran? The CoP unit in a i7 gets different results than an 80387?
Just off the top of my head, I'd say you left out the real cause: new observations of new phenomena.
Some actual data on the accuracy of IPCC projections
The Copenhagen Diagnosis
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-12.PDF
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_3.pdf
Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
Here is some actual data on the accuracy of the IPCC. Way back in 1980, the IPCC told us that the expected warming from a doubling of CO2 was going to be somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees.
When the fourth assessment came out, they narrowed the expected temperature increase to 2.0 to 4.5 degrees In this latest assessment, they now tell us that the expected temperature increase is gong to be 1.5 to 4.5 degrees.
Now here is the tough part...the part where you use your brain and apply it to some critical thinking.
What did computers look like back in 1980 in contrast to computers today? Were you around in 1980? Remember tape drives that actually used cassette tapes? Disk drives the size of dishwashers that held squat? Boxes and boxes of data cards to run the simplest programs? Is any of this ringing a bell? Your smart phone has more computing power than 99.5% of the computers that existed in 1980 and a couple of modern computer gaming consoles run in series have more power than anything from the 80's.
And what did computer programs look like back then when contrasted to modern software? Remember Pong? Space Invaders? Donky Kong? Pac Man? This was three years before the the holy grail of computer software was produced.....Dragon's Lair. Those represented the pinnacle of computer software at the time. Top of the line software back then ran on a few thousand lines of code. How many lines of code do you think it takes to run your smart phone today? How many lines in a climate model? Millions? Tens of millions?
So here we are 30+ years later, gains in computer power, and speed that simply could not be imagined back then, hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars spent by the field of climate "science" and what have they produced? An estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2 that is right back to where they were in 1980 running the simplest of computer models on machines so primitive that they couldn't even handle the most basic children's software today. No improvement at all after 30 years and hundreds of billions of dollars down the toilet.
The funny, and tragically sad thing is that there are still people who place any trust and faith at all in the field at all.
Oh, I almost forgot. About that critical thinking thing that you guys are so bad at....why do you suppose that after 30+ years of unimaginable increases in computer speed and power...software that is orders of magnitude more complex than back in the good old days, and hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars spent on "research".....climate science has not narrowed its estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2 by even a fraction of a degree?
Think real hard.....your answer will speak volumes about you if you have the cojones to answer at all.
So, the math in C* gets different results than the math in Fortran? The CoP unit in a i7 gets different results than an 80387?
Just off the top of my head, I'd say you left out the real cause: new observations of new phenomena.
Why read your peer reviewed papers...they are demolished in hours by mere statisticians.
Laughable, simply laughable. You're starting to show your colors trolling blunder...
Your mere statistician has not "demolished" ANY papers. He made a minor correction to ONE paper that HAD NO EFFECT ON THE PAPER'S CONCLUSIONS.
And since then, perhaps a few thousand papers have come out providing support for AGW for which your hero Steve has not had a word to say.
Pathetic, simply pathetic.
ps: "Why read your peer-reviewed papers". Now there's a fellow in search of the truth. Unfortunately, it's the 'truth' he already manufactured in his own, uneducated head.
pps: Did Dave ASK you for your help or is it just that you see him floundering?
Why read your peer reviewed papers...they are demolished in hours by mere statisticians.
Laughable, simply laughable. You're starting to show your colors trolling blunder...
Your mere statistician has not "demolished" ANY papers. He made a minor correction to ONE paper that HAD NO EFFECT ON THE PAPER'S CONCLUSIONS.
And since then, perhaps a few thousand papers have come out providing support for AGW for which your hero Steve has not had a word to say.
Pathetic, simply pathetic.
ps: "Why read your peer-reviewed papers". Now there's a fellow in search of the truth. Unfortunately, it's the 'truth' he already manufactured in his own, uneducated head.
pps: Did Dave ASK you for your help or is it just that you see him floundering?
You seem to have accepted a talking point about McIntyre that allows you to dismiss any of his accomplishments. Would you mind clarifying which paper you are referring to?
Mann's first hockeystick with the wonky methodology? Mann's 2008 hockeystick with the notorious upsidedown Tiljander cores? Steig's Antarctic paper? The Gergis SH hockeystick? One of the Briffa series with bodges and cherrypicked start and end dates perhaps? Need I go on?
Actually I am pretty sure you are talking about the Y2K problem that went unnoticed for seven years until McIntyre noticed it while investigating temperature station siting issues. Just because the large correction needed for the US was watered down for global temps because the US is only 2% of land mass, that does not negate the fact that the best measured country in the world needed an unpaid volunteer to track down an obvious mistake that a billion dollar utility with thousand of employees missed.
Your mere statistician has not "demolished" ANY papers. He made a minor correction to ONE paper that HAD NO EFFECT ON THE PAPER'S CONCLUSIONS.
And since then, perhaps a few thousand papers have come out providing support for AGW for which your hero Steve has not had a word to say.
Pathetic, simply pathetic.
ps: "Why read your peer-reviewed papers". Now there's a fellow in search of the truth. Unfortunately, it's the 'truth' he already manufactured in his own, uneducated head.
pps: Did Dave ASK you for your help or is it just that you see him floundering?
You seem to have accepted a talking point about McIntyre that allows you to dismiss any of his accomplishments. Would you mind clarifying which paper you are referring to?
Mann's first hockeystick with the wonky methodology? Mann's 2008 hockeystick with the notorious upsidedown Tiljander cores? Steig's Antarctic paper? The Gergis SH hockeystick? One of the Briffa series with bodges and cherrypicked start and end dates perhaps? Need I go on?
Actually I am pretty sure you are talking about the Y2K problem that went unnoticed for seven years until McIntyre noticed it while investigating temperature station siting issues. Just because the large correction needed for the US was watered down for global temps because the US is only 2% of land mass, that does not negate the fact that the best measured country in the world needed an unpaid volunteer to track down an obvious mistake that a billion dollar utility with thousand of employees missed.
Mann's hockeystick. Tell us how the corrections altered the paper's conclusion.
I reject McIntyre because, in my personal opinion, he's a jerk. His writing would fit right in with the collection of antisocial losers that inhabit this board (and I am including myself). He's no professional and his value to the human race, in my mind, is a large negative value.
Do you reject the instrument record? Do you believe the rate of warming over the last 150 years is unremarkable?
Bump for the model-worshipers.Not so great, actually.
New paper finds computer models are inconsistent with temperature reconstructions of the past millennium
A new paper published in Climate of the Past finds that computer model simulations of past climate are not consistent with reconstructed temperatures of past climate. Thus, either the model simulations are erroneous or the temperature reconstructions erroneous, or both.
--
If we treat simulations and reconstructions as equitable hypotheses about past climate variability, the found general lack of their consistency weakens our confidence in inferences about past climate evolutions on the considered spatial and temporal scales. That is, our available estimates of past climate evolutions are on an equal footing but, as shown here, inconsistent with each other.
So, the models can't even predict past climate.
How are they working on more recent times?
Not so great, actually.
New paper finds climate models cannot explain the global warming stagnation over past 15 years
A new paper by prominent German climatologists Dr. Hans von Storch and Dr. Eduardo Zorita, et al, finds "that the continued [global] warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level." In other words, there is a greater than 98% probability that climate models are unable to explain the stagnation in warming over the past 15+ years. The authors suggest 3 possible explanations for this:
1. the models underestimate natural climate variability
2. the climate models fail to include important forcings such as ocean oscillations and solar amplification
3. the models assume exaggerated climate sensitivity to man-made CO2
The authors point out that even if climate sensitivity to CO2 was greatly reduced future models, it is still "hardly feasible" that the models would reproduce the 15 year stagnation of temperature, stating, "a recalibration [with lower CO2 sensitivity] reproducing the reduced warming of the last 15 years appears hardly feasible." All of which suggests that CO2 is not the control knob of climate and natural variability is.
So -- the models can't predict the past, and they can't predict the present.
Remind me again why I should trust them to predict the future...?
Does carbon dioxide affect our atmosphere?
Your mere statistician has not "demolished" ANY papers. He made a minor correction to ONE paper that HAD NO EFFECT ON THE PAPER'S CONCLUSIONS.
And since then, perhaps a few thousand papers have come out providing support for AGW for which your hero Steve has not had a word to say.
Pathetic, simply pathetic.
ps: "Why read your peer-reviewed papers". Now there's a fellow in search of the truth. Unfortunately, it's the 'truth' he already manufactured in his own, uneducated head.
pps: Did Dave ASK you for your help or is it just that you see him floundering?
You seem to have accepted a talking point about McIntyre that allows you to dismiss any of his accomplishments. Would you mind clarifying which paper you are referring to?
Mann's first hockeystick with the wonky methodology? Mann's 2008 hockeystick with the notorious upsidedown Tiljander cores? Steig's Antarctic paper? The Gergis SH hockeystick? One of the Briffa series with bodges and cherrypicked start and end dates perhaps? Need I go on?
Actually I am pretty sure you are talking about the Y2K problem that went unnoticed for seven years until McIntyre noticed it while investigating temperature station siting issues. Just because the large correction needed for the US was watered down for global temps because the US is only 2% of land mass, that does not negate the fact that the best measured country in the world needed an unpaid volunteer to track down an obvious mistake that a billion dollar utility with thousand of employees missed.
Mann's hockeystick. Tell us how the corrections altered the paper's conclusion.
I reject McIntyre because, in my personal opinion, he's a jerk. His writing would fit right in with the collection of antisocial losers that inhabit this board (and I am including myself). He's no professional and his value to the human race, in my mind, is a large negative value.
Do you reject the instrument record? Do you believe the rate of warming over the last 150 years is unremarkable?
