How have the IPCC's computer models performed?

[SSDD]

James Hansen was the top of his field. You, however, are a AAAAA Moron.

Hansen is a card carrying activist wacko and his predictions have completely failed. Interesting though that you name such a wacko as the top of the field...says volumes about the field.

 

[itfitzme]

Here we go again.



Rate of temperature change along world's coastlines changed dramatically over past three decades -- ScienceDaily



F A I L

 

[itfitzme]

Climate study projects major changes in vegetation distribution by 2100 -- ScienceDaily


OOPS, I DID IT AGAIN

 

[SSDD]

Climate study projects major changes in vegetation distribution by 2100 -- ScienceDaily


OOPS, I DID IT AGAIN

And which failing models do you suppose that prediction is based on?

 

[Crick]

How about you name some of these "failing models"?

 

[itfitzme]

20-Year-Old Report Successfully Predicted Warming: Scientists | First IPCC Report

Time has proven that even 22 years ago climate scientists understood the dynamics behind global warming well enough to accurately predict warming, says an analysis that compares predictions in 1990 with 20 years of temperature records.





OH OH OH OH OH

 

[Darkwind]

How about you name some of these "failing models"?

*


BTW...in programing terms, the astrick is a wild card denoting *EVERYTHING*.

So, My answer means all of them.

 

[Crick]

And so you have provided no answer. I can only presume that results from having no pertinent knowledge.

ps: the word is spelled (and pronounced) "a s t e r i s k"

 

[itfitzme]

Odds that global warming is due to natural factors: Slim to none -- ScienceDaily


O M G...

(Really, this is what passes for intelligence among Skooker and company?)

 

[itfitzme]

Permafrost thaw exacerbates climate change -- ScienceDaily
Growing season gains do not offset carbon emissions from permafrost thaw, new research shows. Permafrost contains three to seven times the amount of carbon sequestered in tropical forests


DOWN IN FLAMES

 

[itfitzme]

How about you name some of these "failing models"?

*


BTW...in programing terms, the astrick is a wild card denoting *EVERYTHING*.

So, My answer means all of them.

Which translates to, " I don't actually know what the models are. I just repeat the words like a good little parrot "

 

[skookerasbil]

Odds that global warming is due to natural factors: Slim to none -- ScienceDaily


O M G...

(Really, this is what passes for intelligence among Skooker and company?)

I only care about winning s0n!!!

The fact is, after 25 years, the climate crusader alarmists haven't made their case. Its the simple. In the world of the AGW k00ks, they have......but nowhere else. The proof is well illustrated in this forum in the thread, MORE PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING.

Indeed......after 25 years of bomb throwing, fossil fuels still dOmInAtE the energy landscape!! Renewables are a joke......they've barely moved the goalposts. By 2040, the landscape wont look much different too.......well......that is if you take seriously what the Obama EIA said late last year.


Perhaps we skeptics aren't intelligent......but we're winning..........h u g e!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Ahhh.....for the hell of it and the hoot of it, thought Id throw in that Obama administration graph that makes me laugh my balls off every time I post it up!!!

Of course, I threw in the cheesy ghey MS Paint hysteria for effect >>>>>

 

[skookerasbil]

wHo's nOt wInNiNg???

 

[SSDD]

How about you name some of these "failing models"?

Sure...no problem. Looks like two failed considerably less than the other 71 but they still failed.

 

[Crick]

Do you REALLY want to pull Spencer and Christy's JOKE out here and pretend its real?

Why don't you do some searching and find some of the real discussion about this Spencer claptrap. You've embarrassed yourself here often enough. You really don't need the added exposure.

 

[Crick]

Perhaps we skeptics aren't intelligent.

You've just moved up a notch in my book skooks.

 

[bripat9643]

Climate study projects major changes in vegetation distribution by 2100 -- ScienceDaily


OOPS, I DID IT AGAIN

Did what, posted a warmist horseshit?

 

[Kosh]

Do you REALLY want to pull Spencer and Christy's JOKE out here and pretend its real?

Why don't you do some searching and find some of the real discussion about this Spencer claptrap. You've embarrassed yourself here often enough. You really don't need the added exposure.

You can not have a real discussion on this issue with AGW cult members.

Once they can admit AGW is not science then we will be moving in the right direction.

Until then anyone claiming that AGW IS science is not to be taken seriously. Especially to those that enjoy actual real science.

 

[SSDD]

Do you REALLY want to pull Spencer and Christy's JOKE out here and pretend its real?

Why don't you do some searching and find some of the real discussion about this Spencer claptrap. You've embarrassed yourself here often enough. You really don't need the added exposure.

You mean some real cherry picking and denial of the facts from a warmist wacko? No thanks..I will stick to the facts which is what the graph shows. I know it must be like sunlight to a vampire for you, but try and look...set yourself free...stop being a stooge.