tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post5243587742652138720..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Global warming is just a QUARTER of what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrongUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-18635185700023999342013-09-16T17:10:51.922-07:002013-09-16T17:10:51.922-07:00The models have been falsified at a confidence lev...The models have been falsified at a confidence level of 90% over the past 20 years, and 98% over the past 15 years, and 100% over the past 5 years.<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/why-forthcoming-un-ipcc-report-is.html<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/07/new-paper-finds-in-retrospect-we.html<br /><br />No cherry picking involved - the models have been falsified for any number between 5 to 20. In addition, they are unable to reproduce the Medieval, Roman, Egyptian, Minoan, Holocene Climate Optimum warming periods, all of which were warmer than the present. Therefore, the models are falsified on a short and long term basis.<br />MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-39828692747616394942013-09-16T14:48:51.427-07:002013-09-16T14:48:51.427-07:00This refers to the work of Dr. Fyfe.
Fyfe et al i...This refers to the work of Dr. Fyfe.<br /><br />Fyfe et al isn't a refutation of the IPCC. It is<br />just one paper that shows that the global surface air temperature has recently been rising at the lower limit of expectations.<br /><br />Climate scientists and the IPCC have consistently said that you need to average over 30-year periods for the<br />global surface air temperature to reflect the climate (as opposed to the weather). Fyfe et al are looking at 20 years of data, which isn't enough for the short-term fluctuations to even out.<br /><br />We expect to see periods of a decade or more when the rate of warming is a bit low - we just happen to be in one of those periods now.<br /><br />The easiest way to understand this is to look at this graph:<br /><br />http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47<br /><br />One expert commented:<br /><br />"[Fyfe et al] hinges on the cherry picking of dates. 1998 was anexceptional year. If one does the reverse and take 1975 to 1998 the warming is larger than nearly every model predicts. From 1998 on it<br />is lower. From 1975 to present it is just right. So one major blip of an exceptionally warm year can really distort messages if it is cherry<br />picked."jzfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11861058020932598173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-71670123185620643332013-09-16T09:53:54.802-07:002013-09-16T09:53:54.802-07:00see comments at WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2...see comments at WUWT<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/15/the-state-of-climate-science-fluxed-up/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.com