To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[Old Rocks]

Here is the present problem for the denialists. The whole world has accepted what the scientists are stating. They have become a mere footnote to history. A sad one at that.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Here is the present problem for the denialists. The whole world has accepted what the scientists are stating. They have become a mere footnote to history. A sad one at that.

Another blanket statement with no facts. Future generations is going to laugh at you at how primitive, pompous and arrogant the AGW cult really was.

 

[Crick]

One statement covers all your bases: the 194 signatures on COP21.

 

[skookerasbil]

Here is the present problem for the denialists. The whole world has accepted what the scientists are stating. They have become a mere footnote to history. A sad one at that.

The whole world has accepted it..........but to what end? Its nothing but a scientific billboard for those who pay attention.........which is very few!!

I could say my football team beat an undefeated football team and take lots of bows, but if my teams record is 2-14, nobody cares.

As a climate skeptic in 2015, Im winning huge!! None of the stuff the climate alarmists hope to do is happening..........and for the next 35+ years at least, fossil fuels will dominate the energy landscape ( well.....that's what the Obama EIA says year after year ). That means the science isn't mattering........and please with the solar growth stuff. Its anemic at best and a tiny little sliver of the energy pie and will be for many decades.

Ive been dabbling in this forum for 6 years now.........nothing has changed for the alarmist folks. Nothing ( show links otherwise ). But in my camp, much to smile about = since 2010, the concerns of the public as it relates to global warming has taken a swan dive to the very bottom of the well, thus, I win.

 

[SSDD]

The graphs I posted were the result of feeding "GCM, hindcasting, climate models" into Google.

You have all repeatedly claimed that ALL GCMs fail. That I show any that succeed refutes you. And I have shown more total models than you've put up from Spencer. If you think I haven't quite gotten there, I can just go back to Google and get a hundred more graphs.

If you want someone to take Spencer's shite seriously, why don't you attempt to refute the points made in HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception without falling back on simply insulting its author. Show us that Spencer did NOT do what she shows us that he did. Show us that it did NOT have the effects on the comparison that she shows us it did. I'll bet money you can't do it and I'll win.

Again goober, your graph leaves out almost 60% of the models..you said yourself that your graph includes 42 models...spencer's includes 72...your graph disregards almost 60% of the models available...again, for what purpose?...cherrypicking of course so that you can claim that they didn't do so bad and just hope that no one noticed that almost 60% of the model data isn't represented there.

 

[Crick]

What the fuck are you talking about?

Maybe you should have looked up CMIP before opening your yap and making yourself look a complete fool once again

Coupled model intercomparison project
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In climatology, the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) is a framework and the analog of the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP) for global coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation models. CMIP began in 1995 under the auspices of the Working Group on Coupled Modeling (WGCM), which is in turn under auspices ofCLIVAR and the Joint Scientific Committee for the World Climate Research Program.

The Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory supports CMIP by helping WGCM to determine the scope of the project, by maintaining the project's data base and by participating in data analysis. CMIP has received model output from the pre-industrial climate simulations ("control runs") and 1% per year increasing-CO2 simulations of about 30 coupled GCMs. More recent phases of the project (20C3M, ...) include more realistic scenarios of climate forcing for both historical, paleoclimate and future scenarios.

5
The most recently completed phase of the project (2010-2014) is CMIP5.

CMIP5 included more metadata describing model simulations than previous phases. The METAFOR project created an exhaustive schema describing the scientific, technical, and numerical aspects of CMIP runs which was archived along with the output data.

In 2014 a new estimate for solar irradiation added corrections for scattering and diffraction. These corrected a component of the quasi-annual signal and increased the signal to noise ratio, respectively. The corrections decreased the average TSI value without affecting the trending in the ACRIM Composite TSI. The corrections established an increase of +0.037%/decade from 1980 to 2000 and a decrease thereafter. Significant declines can be seen during the peak of solar cycles 21 and 22. Solar forcing of climate change may thus be a significantly larger factor than represented in CMIP5.[1]

*******************************************************************************************************

I don't care if he used a thousand CMIP5 models. He shifted them up and he shifted the observations down. His graphic is 100% SHITE and you are a fool to push it.

 

[Dot Com]

Failure? After Paris? Knowing that almost every single climate scientists on the planet accepts AGW? The only failure we're going to suffer will be the common one - that all will suffer due to the shortsighted greed and ignorance of people exactly like you.

The only major political party on the planet chock full 'o deniers Republicans

Bet some of them aren't deniers but are doing so to get paid-off by the extraction industry

 

[Dot Com]

I was showing reason to agree with you. Smog is produced primarily by the combustion of fossil fuels.

I ask every Gw denier if its a problem in china they can't see a foot past their noses and they all agree living like that is no good.

Go green.

repub clinger politicians can't act like Repub jesus didn't give the planet to them to plunder. Otherwise they'd lose their Base. Plus they'd lose Big Oil/Coal lobbyist $$$

 

[IanC]

The graphs I posted were the result of feeding "GCM, hindcasting, climate models" into Google.

You have all repeatedly claimed that ALL GCMs fail. That I show any that succeed refutes you. And I have shown more total models than you've put up from Spencer. If you think I haven't quite gotten there, I can just go back to Google and get a hundred more graphs.

If you want someone to take Spencer's shite seriously, why don't you attempt to refute the points made in HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception without falling back on simply insulting its author. Show us that Spencer did NOT do what she shows us that he did. Show us that it did NOT have the effects on the comparison that she shows us it did. I'll bet money you can't do it and I'll win.

you and Sou can argue all you want about what is the best way to align the graph start time. but you are only trying to deflect from the point. the models run hot.

 

[Crick]

No, they do not.

 

[SSDD]

What the fuck are you talking about?

My bad...I forgot that I was talking about a graph and you can't make heads or tails out of a graph...Here, let me walk you through it. take a look at the box down in the lower right hand side of the image....see the second line? Look close. It says 73 CMP-5 rcp8.5 models and observations. That means that he is showing the average of 73 sets of data. Yours, by your own admission is only showing the average of 43 data sets....yours cherrypicked and left out nearly 60% of the available data in an effort to make the models appear to be doing not so bad...

 

[Crick]

You have yet to even make an attempt to answer the charge that Spencer shifted the model outputs up and the observations down. This line of yours that models were cherry picked is complete nonsense and clearly shows you don't even understand what CMIP is. Here, taste reality:

 

[SSDD]

You have yet to even make an attempt to answer the charge that Spencer shifted the model outputs up and the observations down. This line of yours that models were cherry picked is complete nonsense and clearly shows you don't even understand what CMIP is. Here, taste reality:

I am surprised somewhat that you believe that lie...but then again...maybe not.

 

[Crick]

Refute her charges. I'll wait.

 

[IanC]

Refute her charges. I'll wait.

Are you still going on about Sou's nonsense?

Christy started model runs and satellite temps at 1979. The models' trends were all above observation trends. End of story, the models run hot.

Spencer (foolishly) tried to answer criticisms by plotting the actual runs and observations. The models still run hot. He normalized all the start values to a five year average of the first five years of the reference period 1981-2010. Sou wants to nitpick his choices, surprise surprise.

 

[Crick]

Let's try a little more detail in the analysis Ian

Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception
Sou | 7:39 AM

Update: Today Roy Spencer responded below. I've now written another article explaining his deception a slightly different way.

Sou 21 May 2014



Sheesh! How's this for unadulterated chart fudging. Roy Spencer has put up a chart and proclaimed (archived here):
...the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):
Let's look at how he's conned his denier fans. Below I've plotted the CMIP5 composite mean against UAH and GISTemp using a 1981-2010 baseline, which is what UAH normally uses, and then I'll discuss what Roy Spencer has effectively done:


Data Sources: NASA, UAH and KNMI Climate Explorer

What he's effectively done is shifted the CMIP5 charts up by around 0.3 degrees. In case you find it hard to credit that even a contrarian scientist would stoop so low, here is Roy Spencer's chart, with my annotations:


Adapted from Source: Roy Spencer
Not only did Roy effectively shift up the CMIP5 data, Roy Spencer effectively shifted down the UAH data in comparison with HadCRUT4. This is the chart of UAH and HadCRUT4 using the 1981-2010 30 year baseline - compare that to Roy Spencer's deceptive fudge:


Data sources: UAH and Met Office Hadley Centre

How did he fudge? What Roy Spencer has done is he's used a five year average - 1979-1983 to plot his data instead of the normal 30 year baseline. Why did he pick 1979 to 1983 as the baseline? The answer can only be that he wanted to deceive his readers. Here is a comparison of UAH and HadCRUT4 using his shonky five year baseline compared to his normal 30-year 1981-2010 baseline.




That's not all that he's done. If you compare the five year baseline chart I plotted with Roy's chart - his chart shows UAH lower than HadCRUT4 in every year. That's not what my chart above shows, even using his shonky 5-year baseline. Roy said he's using "running five year means" - which only shows the elaborate lengths he felt he had to go to in order to deceive people.

Anyway, to further illustrate Roy's shonkiness, here is the longer term CMIP5 and CMIP3 means vs GISTemp using the normal 30 year baseline:


Data Sources: NASA and KNMI Climate Explorer

The divergence only becomes apparent from around 2005. Going by Roy's past behaviour, I shouldn't be surprised at him fudging the data to this extent, but I am.

 

[Dot Com]

Thank you. Maybe deniers won't use that intentionally faulty data set anymore

 

[IanC]

IPCC AR5, using a low RCP, and only seven years into the projection. the models run hot. period. comparing the actual trends makes it even more obvious.

 

[SSDD]

IPCC AR5, using a low RCP, and only seven years into the projection. the models run hot. period. comparing the actual trends makes it even more obvious.

He is so wrapped up in the dogma that I don't know what this will do to him....he seems to place absolute faith in the IPCC, but they admit that the models run hot and he has absolute faith that the models don't run hot...we may see what happens when an immovable object is impacted by an unstoppable force....

My bet is that nothing will happen...he will wipe his mind of the fact that the IPCC says that models run hot and carry on as if he never saw the graph....it is a graph after all and he is crick...and you know crick and graphs...

 

[Crick]

Odd that Ian can express such low opinions of SSDD's ability to reason and his understanding of basic science, yet laugh with him when they think they've been clever. I never realized I could be such a unifying influence.

Tell us Ian, why did the slope of the observations change at the indicated point?