tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post8367890516809463513..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Good News: New climate models incorporate UHI Bad News: Only focus on CO2Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-11304768440047144322010-12-18T08:27:13.120-08:002010-12-18T08:27:13.120-08:00The point is none of the GCMs predicted the diverg...The point is none of the GCMs predicted the divergence between CO2 and global temperatures or adequately incorporate natural forcing such as ocean oscillations and the sun. The reason the models failed to predict the actual behavior is because the sensitivity to CO2 is low to zero. see also<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/10/nothing-wrong-with-hockey-schtick-graph.html<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/10/nothing-wrong-with-hockey-schtick-graph.htmlMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-63420566851987708362010-12-17T22:30:02.290-08:002010-12-17T22:30:02.290-08:00You are using an obviously trimmed graph (where, j...You are using an obviously trimmed graph (where, just by looking at it, the high 1998 start point so clearly would skew the regression in favour of a downward trend) as opposed to LONGER timeseries from a peer reviewed paper (Mears and Wentz), whose fundamental upward trend has been replicated countless times in other peer reviewed papers? Why? It is misleading and dishonest.<br /><br />ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/support/mears_and_wentz_tlt_submitted.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com