28 Sep 17
Originally posted by @metal-brainThat's the problem. You can't say "big differences" without statistics. Without actually measuring the "difference" between observed and modeled temperature, the data you are presenting does not say anything at all. It's useless.
You are avoiding the two other links. You show me statistics to prove your assertion. You can't ignore mine and expect me to accept a double standard. You wouldn't.
28 Sep 17
Originally posted by @metal-brainIt's not a double standard. You said a poll doesn't exist. Then, lo and behold, two polls pop up. They each say a consensus exists.
I asked you first. Stop the double standards!
You are becoming more and more transparently unfair and everybody can see.
Originally posted by @wildgrassI said a fair poll doesn't exist that proves your false assertions. Lots of polls exist that say scientists instead of climate scientists for example. These polls do exist but are irrelevant because they are intentionally designed to mislead.
It's not a double standard. You said a poll doesn't exist. Then, lo and behold, two polls pop up. They each say a consensus exists.
Edit: Only one was a poll. Stop lying!
Originally posted by @wildgrassI gave you a link with statistics and you refuse to read it. Here it is again. I think this is the third time I posted it. Don't ignore it this time.
That's the problem. You can't say "big differences" without statistics. Without actually measuring the "difference" between observed and modeled temperature, the data you are presenting does not say anything at all. It's useless.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/28/climate-models-have-been-wrong-about-global-warming-for-six-decades/
Originally posted by @metal-brainJust to be clear, we are discarding Dr. Spencer's work because he is making claims that cannot be supported by his own data. If the prior sentence is not correct, please explain how his data bears out his conclusion.
I gave you a link with statistics and you refuse to read it. Here it is again. I think this is the third time I posted it. Don't ignore it this time.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/28/climate-models-have-been-wrong-about-global-warming-for-six-decades/
As to this link to an article in the Daily Caller, there are statistics! Much better. We've looked at this data before. If you look at the first graph, the dotted lines represent statistical confidence/significance. You can see the error gets bigger as the time goes on as you would expect.
The observed data fits inside these error bars for almost all of the 65 year time interval, except for one 3-year period. Certainly, this needs explanation, and scientists have scrambled to try to explain the pause. But, the data and the quotes from the scientific authors certainly does not support the headline of this article.
Edit: To me, the following link seems to contain a lot less bias. No one's yelling "wrong" or "liar" but instead just stating the facts.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150202114636.htm
30 Sep 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassYou have not shown any contradiction in Dr. Spencer's work as you claim. Why don't you do that?
Just to be clear, we are discarding Dr. Spencer's work because he is making claims that cannot be supported by his own data. If the prior sentence is not correct, please explain how his data bears out his conclusion.
As to this link to an article in the Daily Caller, there are statistics! Much better. We've looked at this data before. If you look at th ...[text shortened]... nstead just stating the facts.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150202114636.htm
Here is an excerpt from the Daily Caller link:
"Michaels and Knappenberger, however, suggest the “hiatus” and the previous decades of overblown temperature predictions point to a huge flaw in climate science: the climate isn’t as sensitive to CO2 as previously thought."
Just as I have been saying all along, CO2 warming is being systematically overestimated. The last link you posted uses Max Planck Institute for their source of info. I did a search and came up with another daily caller link:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/08/this-new-study-devastates-claims-of-global-warming-alarmism/
Climate models have not been fairly correct as your link claims. You saw the statistics on the other Daily Caller link yourself. It isn't even close. At best all you can claim is that short term predictions are not quite as bad, but they are still off by a lot.
The science daily link also has no statistics. You have failed your own criteria.
01 Oct 17
Originally posted by @metal-brainI don't see you as reading his link. You are just on a kick to try to make everyone believe they don't know shyte and only YOUR guys will get it right. Here is the kicker: What if you are wrong? You seem quite willing to bet your great grandchildren's welfare on your own determination to be a denier. Do you really want to do that?
You have not shown any contradiction in Dr. Spencer's work as you claim. Why don't you do that?
Here is an excerpt from the Daily Caller link:
"Michaels and Knappenberger, however, suggest the “hiatus” and the previous decades of overblown temperature predictions point to a huge flaw in climate science: the climate isn’t as sensitive to CO2 as pre ...[text shortened]... f by a lot.
The science daily link also has no statistics. You have failed your own criteria.
Originally posted by @metal-brainThat's not what I said. You can't explain how he concluded that models are wrong beyond "there's big differences". From the article you posted, if you read it, it sounds like he's just making stuff up.
You have not shown any contradiction in Dr. Spencer's work as you claim. Why don't you do that?
01 Oct 17
Originally posted by @metal-brainThat's not a quote from the authors, that is an interpretation (or suggestion) in the journalists words. Post the real quotes and/or data. In the graph, the "previous decades" are completely congruent with predictions.
"Michaels and Knappenberger, however, suggest the “hiatus” and the previous decades of overblown temperature predictions point to a huge flaw in climate science: the climate isn’t as sensitive to CO2 as previously thought.
As to your assertion that CO2 levels are being systematically over-estimated, you have no evidence of this at all. In order to show this, you would need a reasonably accurate climate climate model, but according to you all climate models are junk.
p.s. the article I posted talked about statistics in detail. It's literally in the title of the article.
Originally posted by @wildgrassthis is just one of the huge logical inconsistencies in his many ridiculous baseless claims.
... In order to show this, you would need a reasonably accurate climate model, but according to you all climate models are junk..
One cannot validly have it both ways; If they aren't junk then the many showing global warming is evidence for global warming. If the models are junk then they cannot be used as evidence for no global warming. They aren't junk (and I speak as an expert on computer modelling and computer simulations).
06 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassYou could have given me an example a long time ago. Since you didn't I think you are either making it up or trying to waste my time.
That's not what I said. You can't explain how he concluded that models are wrong beyond "there's big differences". From the article you posted, if you read it, it sounds like he's just making stuff up.
06 Oct 17
Originally posted by @metal-brainWhat are you talking about?
You could have given me an example a long time ago. Since you didn't I think you are either making it up or trying to waste my time.
06 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassYou are lying again. I never said all climate models are junk. It is the people that overestimate and input the wrong data that are junk. Climate models are tools. Tools can be used correctly and incorrectly.
That's not a quote from the authors, that is an interpretation (or suggestion) in the journalists words. Post the real quotes and/or data. In the graph, the "previous decades" are completely congruent with predictions.
As to your assertion that CO2 levels are being systematically over-estimated, you have no evidence of this at all. In order to show thi ...[text shortened]... article I posted talked about statistics in detail. It's literally in the title of the article.
The Max Planck Institute would rather claim that something is causing global cooling than accept that CO2 warming is being overestimated. They are in deep denial that co2 warming is such a marginal cause. They are still stuck in the Al Gore mindset that co2 came before temp rise. They need someone honest that will constantly remind them that temp increases came first and CO2 lagged behind in the ice core samples. When they finally accept their cause and effect is completely backwards they can then make progress instead of getting all their predictions wrong.
Remember, almost all predictions by climate models are over-estimations. This is not mere coincidence. Their input is wrong so their output is wrong. A child could understand that as long as that child is unbiased. You can't because you are biased and don't want to be confused with facts. You say I have no evidence, but climate models have already shown consistent predictions of more warming than the observations.
p.s. The article talks about statistics but shows none. Talk is not evidence. Anybody can talk and mislead. I have shown you many examples of that. You are a perfect example yourself. You talk and demand statistics and show none yourself. You are all talk and nothing more. Talk is not acceptable for you, but you insist it be acceptable to me. You are a hypocrite!
06 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassShow me an example. All you do is talk and show nothing!
What are you talking about?
Copy and paste the contradiction you claim exists. No more hypocrisy!
06 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @metal-brainI asked you at least 4 times to explain how "over 95% of climate models are wrong". Dr. Spencer's article doesn't show it and the data doesn't demonstrate it. Since you haven't answered the question in any meaningful way, you must not know either. Maybe - possibly - he is calling that model represented by the dotted green line (average) "wrong" because it was off by 0.01 degrees over a 30 year time span. If so, that seems like an unreasonable metric for judging accuracy.
Show me an example. All you do is talk and show nothing!
Copy and paste the contradiction you claim exists. No more hypocrisy!
The other article you posted showed accurate climate modeling over the large majority of the observed time periods. The authors contend that observed temps fall consistently below the average modeled temps, but they are well within a reasonable margin of error. If you read the article I posted, they argue that long term modeling is sensitive to random climate fluctuations, which can compound over time. This makes sense.