What literature does the IPCC assess?

[Crick]

And now Legates. Do you agree that only 0.3% of climate studies in the past decade accept or support AGW?

 

[IanC]

And now Legates. Do you agree that only 0.3% of climate studies in the past decade accept or support AGW?

Like I said, I haven't read it. Do you have some proof that he didn't follow the guidelines he set for his survey? Or are you just pissed that he isn't rubberstamping approval for AGW?

 

[IanC]

And you do not? What is your opinion of Roy Spencer's widely publicized fabrication of CMIP5 model results? Did you find that acceptable? How about Legates conclusions about the AGW consensus to be found in peer reviewed climate studies? Was that good science Ian? Don't waste our time with your holier-than-thou bullshit.

are you talking about the mismatch between model predictions and measurement reality that Christie started off a few years ago?

I actually like this one the best. it only shows the slopes of the data, which negates the problems of where and how to normalize the data. the models run hot. period.

Spencer tried to answer the bleating of critics with various 'improvements, like showing the actual runs and normalizing the start point to a five year average, as well as adding a land surface temp dataset.

of course we could just go to the IPCC for information. here is a base graph from AR5 draft, with animation added

so tell me specifically what you thought Spencer did wrong. Im not seeing your point.

HotWhopper Roy Spencer s latest deceit and deception

I've posted this link at least three times.

That's it? 'What she said'.

Put in your own words what you think was unfair or mistaken with Christie's graph, Spencer's graph or the IPCC graph. They all say the same thing. Climate models run hot.

 

[Crick]

And now Legates. Do you agree that only 0.3% of climate studies in the past decade accept or support AGW?

Like I said, I haven't read it. Do you have some proof that he didn't follow the guidelines he set for his survey? Or are you just pissed that he isn't rubberstamping approval for AGW?

Now who's ducking and dodging?

 

[Crick]

And you do not? What is your opinion of Roy Spencer's widely publicized fabrication of CMIP5 model results? Did you find that acceptable? How about Legates conclusions about the AGW consensus to be found in peer reviewed climate studies? Was that good science Ian? Don't waste our time with your holier-than-thou bullshit.

are you talking about the mismatch between model predictions and measurement reality that Christie started off a few years ago?

I actually like this one the best. it only shows the slopes of the data, which negates the problems of where and how to normalize the data. the models run hot. period.

Spencer tried to answer the bleating of critics with various 'improvements, like showing the actual runs and normalizing the start point to a five year average, as well as adding a land surface temp dataset.

of course we could just go to the IPCC for information. here is a base graph from AR5 draft, with animation added

so tell me specifically what you thought Spencer did wrong. Im not seeing your point.

HotWhopper Roy Spencer s latest deceit and deception

I've posted this link at least three times.

That's it? 'What she said'.

Put in your own words what you think was unfair or mistaken with Christie's graph, Spencer's graph or the IPCC graph. They all say the same thing. Climate models run hot.

I've got a better idea. In your own words, explain why you do or do not believe blogger Sou's analysis of Spencer's 'work'.

Sou's second post following Spencer's response

HotWhopper Roy Spencer grows even wearier...

 

[IanC]

And you do not? What is your opinion of Roy Spencer's widely publicized fabrication of CMIP5 model results? Did you find that acceptable? How about Legates conclusions about the AGW consensus to be found in peer reviewed climate studies? Was that good science Ian? Don't waste our time with your holier-than-thou bullshit.

are you talking about the mismatch between model predictions and measurement reality that Christie started off a few years ago?

I actually like this one the best. it only shows the slopes of the data, which negates the problems of where and how to normalize the data. the models run hot. period.

Spencer tried to answer the bleating of critics with various 'improvements, like showing the actual runs and normalizing the start point to a five year average, as well as adding a land surface temp dataset.

of course we could just go to the IPCC for information. here is a base graph from AR5 draft, with animation added

so tell me specifically what you thought Spencer did wrong. Im not seeing your point.

HotWhopper Roy Spencer s latest deceit and deception

I've posted this link at least three times.

That's it? 'What she said'.

Put in your own words what you think was unfair or mistaken with Christie's graph, Spencer's graph or the IPCC graph. They all say the same thing. Climate models run hot.

I've got a better idea. In your own words, explain why you do or do not believe blogger Sou's analysis of Spencer's 'work'.

Sou's second post following Spencer's response

HotWhopper Roy Spencer grows even wearier...

hahahahaha. what a whiney little douchebag you are. you're not willing to put down in your own words what you think is wrong because I already answered it. models run hot. period. complaining about where the start point doesnt make any difference. the trend of the models is higher (much higher) than the reality of temperature measurements. even the massaged surface station measurements.

 

[Crick]

hahahahaha. what a whiney little douchebag you are.

What a puerile little c*nt you've become. I'll have to remember we'll be seeing more of this the next time I report you for breaking the rules.

you're not willing to put down in your own words what you think is wrong because I already answered it. models run hot. period.

That you not only believe that is the proper answer but that you believe it even COULD be the proper answer reveals you for an ignorant fool.

complaining about where the start point doesnt make any difference. the trend of the models is higher (much higher) than the reality of temperature measurements. even the massaged surface station measurements.

Then you should have no problem how Sou was able to show the models and the observations lined up nice as could be by doing nothing but undoing what Spencer did. You seem to have missed the point about Spencer using a 5 year baseline when every scientist on Earth - including Spencer - has always used a 30 year baseline; and why he should have picked the SPECIFIC, 5 year baseline he did: because it contained the greatest deviation between the models and UAH. THAT is how he fucked with the trends.

This is really disappointing, Ian. I thought you were a LOT smarter than this.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh, Ian is actually smarter than this, he is just been backed into a corner by the climatic events of the last 3 years. The very deep decline in ice in the Arctic in 2012, the very warm years of 2013 and 2014, in spite of being ENSO neutral, and now coming into a year long El Nino, possibly a strong one, that will probably break all records for warmth. None of the fits in his Weltanschauung.

 

[IanC]

hahahahaha. what a whiney little douchebag you are.

What a puerile little c*nt you've become. I'll have to remember we'll be seeing more of this the next time I report you for breaking the rules.

you're not willing to put down in your own words what you think is wrong because I already answered it. models run hot. period.

That you not only believe that is the proper answer but that you believe it even COULD be the proper answer reveals you for an ignorant fool.

complaining about where the start point doesnt make any difference. the trend of the models is higher (much higher) than the reality of temperature measurements. even the massaged surface station measurements.

Then you should have no problem how Sou was able to show the models and the observations lined up nice as could be by doing nothing but undoing what Spencer did. You seem to have missed the point about Spencer using a 5 year baseline when every scientist on Earth - including Spencer - has always used a 30 year baseline; and why he should have picked the SPECIFIC, 5 year baseline he did: because it contained the greatest deviation between the models and UAH. THAT is how he fucked with the trends.

This is really disappointing, Ian. I thought you were a LOT smarter than this.

you (and Sou) are arguing a different point. Christie was showing that the trends in the models ran much higher than the trend in actual temperatures.

in this graph all models run higher than temps. there are no distractors such as lines crossing over each other, lines starting at different beginning points, just trend lines starting at 1979. this IS the point!

what did the IPCC working draft find? their models ran hotter than temperature trends.

the second, third, fourth, and now fifth report all started after Pinatubo, which was taken into account in the models. the models still run hot.

now we come to the disputed Spencer graph. Spencer used a five year average at the beginning of the graph to normalize all the individual lines. this is what Sou decided to argue about. not the trend lines, not how all the models diverge from reality. she wanted to argue the choice of starting points.

if you think that Sou has demolished the point made by Christie you are scientifically illiterate. Models run hot. they are adjusted to make their hindcast match reality as close as possible but as soon as the models are free of that constraint they run hot. even the IPCC noticed that.

address my points or continue to hide behind Sou's skirts, I dont really care. but dont say I didnt answer your question.

speaking of questions. you seem to have neglected to give your thoughts on whether you agree with the IPCC breaking its own rules by accepting citations on papers that were accepted after their self imposed deadline, published after the actual report was released, and sometimes never published at all.

 

[Crick]

Models ran hot through the unanticipated hiatus. But when you say, as you have now repeatedly, that "models run hot", you are claiming that GCMs, by their inherent nature, produce temperatures that are always higher than observations. That is absolute nonsense.

 

[Crick]

speaking of questions. you seem to have neglected to give your thoughts on whether you agree with the IPCC breaking its own rules by accepting citations on papers that were accepted after their self imposed deadline, published after the actual report was released, and sometimes never published at all.

I suppose they shouldn't have done it.

Do I think that proves their science is bad? No.

Do I think that shows their conclusions shouldn't be trusted? No.

Do I think the point is irrelevant to the science and just another denier attempt at ad homimen character assassination? Why, YES!

Now you can cease your whining. I've answered your fucking useless question.

 

[IanC]

Models ran hot through the unanticipated hiatus. But when you say, as you have now repeatedly, that "models run hot", you are claiming that GCMs, by their inherent nature, produce temperatures that are always higher than observations. That is absolute nonsense.

even Spencer's graph had a few model runs that were lower that measured temps. so what? the models's mean is higher. the climate sensitivity derived from models is higher than that of climate sensitivities derived from real world conditions. until the assumptions built into models is corrected to more closely match reality they will continue to run hot.

 

[Crick]

Models with erroneous assumptions will produce erroneous results. To say, as you have said now repeatedly (in line with the direction from the Fossil Fuel Disinformation Executive Board), that all models run hot, is nonsense.

 

[IanC]

are you arguing that the model mean is correct? or are you saying that a few are close enough to reality that my general statement 'models run hot' is not accurate in every single case? you seem to think 97% consensus means one thing when you make some claims but the 3% of model runs at reality cancels out all the other hot runs.

I know it is hard to maintain a consistent standard of judging claims that are both for and against your own personal preference but you should try it sometimes.

do you think model forecasts are accurate or are they likely to be exaggerated?

 

[Crick]

I think model forecasts are as accurate as the assumptions built in to the model. I do not think that "models" in general, have a tendency to go in any particular direction.

I disagree with the methodology with which Christy and Spencer built their comparisons. I believe the CMIP5 models are far more accurate than they two of them would like us to believe. I think very few models saw the hiatus coming, but since its beginning to look as if the hiatus never really existed, that's not as much of a problem as you'd like it to be.