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.
If you're dishonest enough to pretend the persistent La Nina hasn't existed, you could declare there's a cooling trend. But only if you're that dishonest. If you're not dishonest, you have to acknowledge the ongoing warming trend, with most of warming currently going into the oceans, due to the persistent La Nina.
If you're dishonest enough to pretend the persistent La Nina hasn't existed, you could declare there's a cooling trend. But only if you're that dishonest. If you're not dishonest, you have to acknowledge the ongoing warming trend, with most of warming currently going into the oceans, due to the persistent La Nina.
If a la Nina (or PDO or AMO or TSI) can overwhelm and HALT the massive warming trend of runaway GHgases, then perhaps a rational person would say that the NATURAL contributions to the climate are SEVERELY underrated in the models..
But rational isn't what we're getting as a response from the true believers.. Is it Catman?
Where do plants get the carbon that they need to build themselves from?
LOL, Carbon is all over the place silly socko. In the soil, in rocks, you name it. It's the 4th most abundant element in the universe by mass. Behind Hydrogen, Helium and Oxygen. It's an element socko, it's the base for all known life..*
Now please spare us the fake scientist BS routine already.. It's getting really old now. As If this bit of stupidity on your part wasn't enough to prove your full of it... WOW man seriously WOW..
It's not even in the top ten on earth screwball. And it is extremely rare in its elemental form.*
That's why the source required for plants to build themselves is CO2. Not rocks.*
Someone asked the other day if there was any purpose to all of this posting. My purpose is to get you through fifth grade science. Tough job.
If you're dishonest enough to pretend the persistent La Nina hasn't existed, you could declare there's a cooling trend. But only if you're that dishonest. If you're not dishonest, you have to acknowledge the ongoing warming trend, with most of warming currently going into the oceans, due to the persistent La Nina.
If a la Nina (or PDO or AMO or TSI) can overwhelm and HALT the massive warming trend of runaway GHgases, then perhaps a rational person would say that the NATURAL contributions to the climate are SEVERELY underrated in the models..*
But rational isn't what we're getting as a response from the true believers.. Is it Catman?
Yup. Its called hidden variable fraud when you make definitive statements knowing that important factors have been left out or undervalued. Climate models have a severely incomplete list of input factors as well as incorrect weighting.
When are these warmers gonna learn to LABEL the models in their graphs?
Kinda like the one that UAH put out? A raft of model runs doesn't mean CRAP unless you know
the assumptions and the authors and the tunings...
NO.. That ginormous yellow squiggle of *YELLOW plots is just noise without knowing HOW they differ or what CO2 emission scenario was used, or what was the Climate Sensitivity assumptions or any of a HUNDRED different variables.. That's why you need the author, the paradigm and the tunings..*
You -- are happy looking at unidentified noise?? Fine.. It speaks loudly about your level of tolerance for picking up crap on the street and consuming it..
What's funny is these clowns look at model outputs and think they qualify as data. It says a great deal about their level of education (or lack thereof) that they will look at computer models and not realize that they are fictional. They may or may not have any basis in reality (we have seen that climate models actually DON'T have a basis in reality) but that interests them not at all.
They may as well read the Harry Potter books to tell them what the climate is....they are every bit as good at predicting the future climate as the computer models are.
What's funny is these clowns look at model outputs and think they qualify as data. It says a great deal about their level of education (or lack thereof) that they will look at computer models and not realize that they are fictional. They may or may not have any basis in reality (we have seen that climate models actually DON'T have a basis in reality) but that interests them not at all.
They may as well read the Harry Potter books to tell them what the climate is....they are every bit as good at predicting the future climate as the computer models are.
What's funny is these clowns look at model outputs and think they qualify as data. *It says a great deal about their level of education (or lack thereof) that they will look at computer models and not realize that they are fictional. *They may or may not have any basis in reality (we have seen that climate models actually DON'T have a basis in reality) but that interests them not at all.
They may as well read the Harry Potter books to tell them what the climate is....they are every bit as good at predicting the future climate as the computer models are.
Doesn't even phase him that the end points at 2005 for the temp anomaly don't even agree with his NOAA temp plot? Or that we have to GUESS what the black/red lines really are? Really? couldn't tell a brownie from a cow pie..*
And if you remember -- this math wiz couldn't figure out that Dr. Roy Spencer's match of models to the temp line was 10 yrs older than this "mystery" plot someone pulled out of some old IPCC report? Or that Dr. Roy provided the EXACT citation for each of the model plots he presented? But he whined that Dr. Roy --- "didn't provide anything new"..*
Time for more "regression" and programming more plot routines I suppose..
The model data is only as perfect and accurate as the imperfect people inputting the data.....Computer models also cannot change themselves by adding relevant data that may have been left out.What's funny is these clowns look at model outputs and think they qualify as data. It says a great deal about their level of education (or lack thereof) that they will look at computer models and not realize that they are fictional. They may or may not have any basis in reality (we have seen that climate models actually DON'T have a basis in reality) but that interests them not at all.
They may as well read the Harry Potter books to tell them what the climate is....they are every bit as good at predicting the future climate as the computer models are.
Who said they were physical data? Physical data goes in, model data comes out.
What's funny is these clowns look at model outputs and think they qualify as data. It says a great deal about their level of education (or lack thereof) that they will look at computer models and not realize that they are fictional. They may or may not have any basis in reality (we have seen that climate models actually DON'T have a basis in reality) but that interests them not at all.
They may as well read the Harry Potter books to tell them what the climate is....they are every bit as good at predicting the future climate as the computer models are.
The model data is only as perfect and accurate as the imperfect people inputting the data.....Computer models also cannot change themselves by adding relevant data that may have been left out.What's funny is these clowns look at model outputs and think they qualify as data. It says a great deal about their level of education (or lack thereof) that they will look at computer models and not realize that they are fictional. They may or may not have any basis in reality (we have seen that climate models actually DON'T have a basis in reality) but that interests them not at all.
They may as well read the Harry Potter books to tell them what the climate is....they are every bit as good at predicting the future climate as the computer models are.
Who said they were physical data? Physical data goes in, model data comes out.
The model data is only as perfect and accurate as the imperfect people inputting the data.....Computer models also cannot change themselves by adding relevant data that may have been left out.Who said they were physical data? Physical data goes in, model data comes out.
That's why computer models are supervised by scientists. Just like the machines at 7/11 that predict how much change you'll receive.
Dr Roy Spencer, the wanna-be climatologist.
About
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASAs Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASAs Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencers work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASAs Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
Dr. Spencers research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
Dr. Spencers first popular book on global warming, Climate Confusion (Encounter Books), is now available at Amazon.com and BarnesAndNoble.com.
Education and Career[edit]
Spencer received a B.S. in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Michigan in 1978 and his M.S. and Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of WisconsinMadison in 1980 and 1982.[1] His doctoral thesis was titled, A case study of African wave structure and energetics during Atlantic transit.[3]
After receiving his Ph.D. in 1982, Spencer worked for two years as a research scientist in the Space Science and Engineering Center at the University of WisconsinMadison.[1] He then joined NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center as a visiting scientist in 1984,[2] where he later became a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies.[1] After leaving NASA in 2001, Spencer has been a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UHA).[1] As well as his position at UHA, Spencer is currently the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite, a position he has held since 1994.[1]
In 2001, he designed an algorithm to detect tropical cyclones and estimate their maximum sustained wind speed using the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU).[4][5]
Spencer has been a member of several science teams: the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Space Station Accommodations Analysis Study Team, Science Steering Group for TRMM, TOVS Pathfinder Working Group, NASA Headquarters Earth Science and Applications Advisory Subcommittee, and two National Research Council (NRC) study panels.[1]
He is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute,[6] and on the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.[7]
Spencer's research work is funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE and the DOT.[2]
You are most definitely a gullible sheep. All cultests are. You get opinions from Rush and Rupert and treat them like news.
Do you believe what Al Gore preaches about Global Warming?
Do you believe that Global Warming is a serious threat to the planet?
If YOU answered "YES" to any one of the questions, than YOU are a gullible sheep.
If you answered "YES" to both questions than YOU are a gullible sheep.
If you didn't answer "yes" to both questions, you accept politics over science. Ignorance over knowledge.
