Australian Politics Forum

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl Member Run Boards >> Environment >> IPCC models vs Observed Data http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1432639461 Message started by Ajax on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:24pm

Title: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Ajax on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:24pm

When your predictions, calculations and climate models don't match the observed data its time to throw out the baby and its water.

Start again.

That's real science.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/90-climate-model-projectons-versus-reality/

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Ajax on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:34pm

Where is the hotspot in the tropopause....?????

Daily weather balloons just can't seem to find it.

You know why cause it only exists in the IPCC models

Quote:

The missing hotspot

The ‘Hotspot’ is crucial to the climate debate.

If greenhouses gases are warming the planet that warming will happen first in the cold blob of air 8-12 km above the tropics. It’s freezing cold up there, but it ought to be slightly less freezing cold thanks to greenhouse gases. All 20-odd climate models predict warming there first—it’s the fingerprint of greenhouse gas warming, as opposed to warming by some other cause, like solar magnetic effects, volcanic eruptions, solar irradiance, or ozone depletion etc etc.

Read the rest here
http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/the-missing-hotspot/

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by lee on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:38pm

Matthew England claims to have found the tropical tropospheric hotspot; it has been holidaying in the Southern Ocean.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Chimp_Logic on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:40pm

Ajax

Do you have any models that predict cooling or static global temperatures as CO2 concentration rises in the earths atmosphere???

Surely there are counter models to support your lunacy?

Any theory that predicts cooling or static temperatures as CO2 concentration rises??

Come on Ajax provide one model - anything - even DATA.

Something - anything

You do have something dont you Ajax????

Or are you just full of hot air?

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Ajax on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:42pm

When weather balloons and satellites failed to finr the hot spot in the tropopause the alarmists said, the missing heat is in the oceans, the top 700 metres.

Nup couldn't find it there so then they said its in the deep oceans.

Nup couldn't find it there either.....!

Cause since 2002 we have had the ARGO.....3000 buoys all over the world's oceans measuring ocean temperature down to 2000 metres.

Quote:

The Travesty of the Missing Heat — deep ocean or outer space?

If there is one topic that trumps all others in climate science, it’s ocean heat.

If there is a planetary imbalance in energy, and Earth is acquiring more heat than it’s losing, we ought to be able to find that heat. Energy can not be created nor destroyed. It has to be somewhere.

On this Water-Planet, virtually every scientist agrees that the vast bulk of the extra energy ought be stored in the water. The oceans cover 70% of the surface, and are 4km deep; water has a high heat capacity (meaning it can store a lot of energy), and, because water flows quickly (unlike rock), turbulence and mixing can take that heat energy away from the surface.

Every skeptic (and taxpayer) ought to know that since 2003 (when we started measuring oceans properly) the oceans have been cooling: Douglass and Knox 2010.

Five years of planetary heating amounts to a massive amount of energy. That’s 2,000 days of the sun bearing down on an atmosphere with growing levels of CO2. According to the IPCC favored models, the extra heat stored should be 0.7 x 1022 Joules per year (or 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules per annum or 7,000 quintillion joules).

The oceans cause a lot of “noise” in our climate — the water is 4km deep and mostly close to freezing, even in the depths under the tropics. When the ocean is “stirred” cold water wells up and sucks the heat out of the atmosphere giving us a La Nina and a cooler year. When the ocean is calm, the massive stores of “cold” stay sequestered below, the surface water warms faster, and satellite record an El Nino warm spike. Figuring out the effects of CO2 with surface thermometers is difficult because of this noise and variability. But the vast oceans are the giant storage depots for heat content year after year.

Read the rest here
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/the-travesty-of-the-missing-heat-deep-ocean-or-outer-space/

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Ajax on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:47pm

Tell me chimp why would Michael Mann deliberately hide the medieval warm period and the mini ice age...???

In his hockey stick....?????

Especially after Mr. Lamb showed it in the 1990 IPCC report....???

What's the reason.....???

Medieval warm period warmer than today.
Dahl_Jensen et al 1998
Wagner & Melles 2001
Kaplan et al 2002
Jiang et al 2002
Moore et al 2001
Grudd et al 2002
Seppa & Birks 2002
Dansgaard et al 1975
Korhola et al 2000
Naurzbaev et al 2002
Vaganov et el 1996
Briffa et al 1998
Scweingruber & Briffa 1996
Knudsen et al 2004
Grinsted et al 2006
Besonen et al 2008
Wagner et al 2008
Vare et al 2009
Norgaard-Pedersen & Mikkelsen 2009
Andresen et al 2004
Vinther et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2008
Stuiver et al 1995
Dansgaard et al 1975
Jenings & Weiner 1996
Johnsen et al 2001
Vinther et al 2010
Larsen et al 2011
Hill et al 2001
Joynt & Wolfe 2001
Hantemirov & Shiyatov 2002
Andersson et al 2003
Helama et al 2005
Mazepa 2005
Weckstrom et al 2006
Jiang et al 2007
Zabenski & Gajewski 2007
Grudd 2008
Justwan et al 2008
Scire et al 2008
Axford et al 2009
Bjune et al 2009
Cook et al 2009
Fortin & Gajewski 2010
Buntgen et al 2011
Divine et al 2011
Ran et al 2011
Velle et al 2011
D’Andrea et al 2012
Esper et al 2012

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Chimp_Logic on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:53pm

Hey Ajax

Do you have any economic models that predicted the 2008 Global financial crisis? Surely such a major global financial event would have been forecasted by expert economists?

Are you aware that Bear Sterns had a AAA financial rating right before the GFC of 2008? What happened to that basket case corporation Ajax?

You still put your money in the Bank dont you Ajax.

You seem to trust economists implicitly and yet they cant tell you what will happen tomorrow in the markets - when the next Bubble will burst and what to do with your moola.

And yet you have great personal difficulty with accepting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas - you wrestle with this dilemma every day batcrap

Yes ladies and gentlemen the Great Ajax batman clown is in town with his internet graphs and YouTube videos.

Well done Ajax - I am sure your therapist still has a lot of work to do before your next crisis ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D ;)

PS: did you work out why Lamb's graph lacks units on the y-axis yet? Nice pretty colours though - where did you dig that graph up from Ajax, fruit loops packet?

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Ajax on May 26^th, 2015 at 10:19pm

Is that the best you can come up with you smelly chimp..!

Why are you dodging the subject with tangents about the GFC....???

Anyway I'm tired but there is more to add to this list.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Chimp_Logic on May 27^th, 2015 at 12:10am

Poor Poor Ajax, he cant respond to a simple challenge and find ONE, just ONE predictive model, theory, hypothesis, scrap of data, anything at all that can demonstrate a cooling or static thermal Earth, as CO2 concentration rises in the atmosphere

Poor Poor deranged Craped Crusader - he has to run away and sleep and rest because tomorrow he must post more web videos and putrid stench web sites.

sweet dreams batcrap - dont have any nightmares over this - we wouldnt want your posting rate to suffer tomorrow now would we Ajax

Poor Poor Dr Sircus mentor, the Easterbrook bunny follower and Salby crack pot worshiper.

Denier - you stand condemned for lunacy, deception and self righteous propaganda dissemination.

As well as boring yourself to sleep Ajax you have also managed to bore me to slumber.

Begone with you smelly freak maggot of Hades

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Sir Bobby on May 27^th, 2015 at 12:23am

All this is further evidence that an Ice Age is upon us.

Mother nature is smarter than most of the scientists -

they might as well look at chicken entrails to make their global warming predictions.

they are forgiven

namaste

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Chimp_Logic on May 27^th, 2015 at 1:48am

I wonder what Dr Sircus thinks?

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by John_Taverner on May 27^th, 2015 at 9:42am

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:47pm:

You must be very desperate to go back 25 years to a period (late 1980s) that had very little in the way of data sets.

- but just as a matter of interest, tell me, was the original publication Northern Hemisphere data or global data?

Is your argument based on the premise that the earlier data was more representative than all the later datasets?

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by gizmo_2655 on May 27^th, 2015 at 10:11am

John_Taverner wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 9:42am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:47pm:

Given that there aren't many (or perhaps even aren't any) Southern Hemisphere records kept between 800 AD and 1300 AD, it's a pretty good bet the MWP was discovered using Northern Hemisphere data.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Ajax on May 27^th, 2015 at 6:26pm

John_Taverner wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 9:42am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:47pm:

It just shows that its not science at the fore here but politics and all the dirty laundry that comes with it.

If it was science AGW would have been dead and buried a long long time ago....!!!!!!!

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Ajax on May 27^th, 2015 at 6:32pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 12:10am:

My dear red arsed chimp we all know the climate models the IPCC use are worthless pieces of junk that haven't been able to forecast ZIP....!!!!!!

We know from the measurements we have taken and compared them to the forecasts of the IPCC models.

What will you do if AGW is mythologizied.

You wouldn't jump of the nearest bridge would you and do us all a favour.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Chimp_Logic on May 27^th, 2015 at 7:30pm

Ajax wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 6:32pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 12:10am:

who is we you deranged putrid sonic night mammal?

Have you found any theoretical models that predict cooling or static global temperatures as CO2 rises int he earths atmosphere??

Surely you have some BS web site that can offer one.

Keep looking Batcrap - youre an embarrassment in here posting your right wing fascist corporatism and banking slavery

Begone smelly maggot puppet of the Great Dr Sircus - BEGONE

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by gizmo_2655 on May 27^th, 2015 at 8:31pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 7:30pm:

Ajax wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 6:32pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 12:10am:

who is we you deranged putrid sonic night mammal?

everyone with a brain, and who pays attention to the scientific method chimp....in other words, everyone but the members of the Church of Climatology.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Rider on May 27^th, 2015 at 9:06pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 8:31pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 7:30pm:

Ajax wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 6:32pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 12:10am:

who is we you deranged putrid sonic night mammal?

everyone with a brain, and who pays attention to the scientific method chimp....in other words, everyone but the members of the Church of Climatology.

Chump is a fraud, just a pathetic disingenuous socialist dressed up in environmentalism drag.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Ajax on May 27^th, 2015 at 9:47pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 7:30pm:

Ajax wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 6:32pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 12:10am:

Hey hairy arse you're in denial, seek out a quack and have a few sessions, it might break those subliminal messages the IPCC have managed to implant in that tiny brain of yours........... :D ;) 8-)

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Ajax on May 27^th, 2015 at 10:10pm

Failed predictions model/human:

http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by rabbitoh08 on May 27^th, 2015 at 11:06pm

John_Taverner wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 9:42am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:47pm:

Don't feed the troll.

It only attracts other lying trolls like Gizmo.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by gizmo_2655 on May 27^th, 2015 at 11:07pm

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 11:06pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 9:42am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:47pm:

Don't feed the troll.

It only attracts other lying trolls like Gizmo.

Oh ouch... ;D ;D

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by rabbitoh08 on May 27^th, 2015 at 11:20pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 11:07pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 11:06pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 9:42am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:47pm:

Don't feed the troll.

It only attracts other lying trolls like Gizmo.

Oh ouch... ;D ;D

Yes Gizmo. We know that you ran away like the weak little piece of crap you are - but the fact remains that you are a liar.

You have been caught red-handed telling lies.

Here is the last example:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1421385253/1134#1134

So - tell use again Gizmo why you wrote:
"global glacial mass balance going up"

That is a complete fabrication
A falsehood
A lie.

You are a liar Gizmo.
You have been caught telling lies.

Any explanation?

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by gizmo_2655 on May 27^th, 2015 at 11:26pm

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 11:20pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 11:07pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 11:06pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 9:42am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:47pm:

Don't feed the troll.

It only attracts other lying trolls like Gizmo.

Oh ouch... ;D ;D

Only the truth...which you obviously can't accept.
The Ice Mass is increasing. Antarctica is probably enough to balance out any loss in the Arctic (although the Arctic is also increasing, in reality, just not on warmist paper)

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by rabbitoh08 on May 27^th, 2015 at 11:32pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 11:26pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 11:20pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 11:07pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 11:06pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 9:42am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:47pm:

Don't feed the troll.

It only attracts other lying trolls like Gizmo.

Oh ouch... ;D ;D

Still waiting Gizmo.

You told us:
"global glacial mass balance going up"

This is a lie.
I am calling you a liar
You are telling untruths.
You have been caught red-handed telling untruths.

If you wish you say I'm wrong - perhaps you could show some evidence of:
"global glacial mass balance going up"

That would solve all of our problems.

But you can't, can you Gizmo.
You are a liar.
You were caught telling a lie.

Show us some evidence to support your statement Gizmo - or apologise for lying to the forum.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Marla on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:56am

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:24pm:

That's real science.

No question about it. Real Koch Brothers-funded science.

I'm amazed on how you manage to find so many "credible" scientist in the anti-global warming who are not really scientists at all.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:25am

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 11:26pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 11:20pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 11:07pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 11:06pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 27^th, 2015 at 9:42am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:47pm:

Don't feed the troll.

It only attracts other lying trolls like Gizmo.

Oh ouch... ;D ;D

dimensional analysis- let alone some facts and figures ::)- thanks :) :)

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Chimp_Logic on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:55am

Well well well well well.........

Guess who's back in town ladies gentlemen

If it isnt the bigoted fascist corpocratic bankster Rider

Rider the stenched up maggot freak puppet all ready for a shoot out at his deranged watering hole.

Yes the selective moral lunacy of the Great Rider freak maggot - Rider wants socialistic welfare for his criminal corporations, banksters and the elite and nobody else. Rider is a socialistic alright - the biggest of them all and he will do anything to protect this elitist scam. You see, Rider is appalled and vomits at the thought of unemployment benefits, free education, health access to all etc, but lays back in his smelly banana chair and nods as the Royal family gouges the public trough of billions of dollars whilst doing nothing to earn it. He watchers fossil fuel companies, banks, elitists and fascist capitalists suckle on the public tax nipple and nods in conformity. The great Rider hypocrite ladies and gentlemen

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Chimp_Logic on May 28^th, 2015 at 10:00am

Ajax ya smelly sonic freak maggot

Have you bothered to look up "greenhouse effect" in the dictionary yet mate?

Or are you busy reading the cancer cures of the Great Dr Sircus??

Are you going to post any more of your laughable and fraudulant lists of experts mate?

Go on mate - the circus is in town,

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by lee on May 28^th, 2015 at 10:55am

Marla wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:56am:

No question about it. Real Koch Brothers-funded science.

Oh, no, The Koch Conspiracy is back.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Marla on May 28^th, 2015 at 10:58am

It's real - like your ignorance.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by lee on May 28^th, 2015 at 11:12am

And yet you provide no proof.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Marla on May 28^th, 2015 at 2:15pm

Ajax did the work for me.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Rider on May 28^th, 2015 at 2:36pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:55am:

oh you shouldn't have gone to the trouble Chump. You're still a fraud. Trying to trick people with your rotten corrupt socialism whilst dressing ever so smuggly in your environmentalist drag outfit.

Such a pathetic fraud aren't you Chump.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by lee on May 28^th, 2015 at 2:54pm

Marla wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 2:15pm:

Ajax did the work for me.

I must have missed that reference. Can you please post it for me?

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Chimp_Logic on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:19pm

Rider getting all worked up - poor poor Rider - his deranged form of bigoted fascism is all there in the open for everyone to witness ladies and gentlemen.

The dehumanising ways of the politically immoral Rider

The resident freak neurotic on OzPolitics - hides in the shadows, in the lanes ways of materialistic totalitarian corporatism and bank crime.

Rider contributes a lot to the debate - he provides the immoral compass by which we are able to dismiss our own inhumanity

And for that Rider should be thanked
;D :D ;D

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Chimp_Logic on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:23pm

I am still waiting for someone, anyone, to present a predictive model based upon sound scientific theory, which demonstrates a cooling or static thermal earth as atmospheric CO2 concentration rises. I have been issuing this challenge online for almost 7 years.

Any takers?

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by lee on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:29pm

Does it have to be as accurate as CO2 warming models?

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Chimp_Logic on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:35pm

lee wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:29pm:

Does it have to be as accurate as CO2 warming models?

You do realise that computer models are based on a theoretical framework??? Computers are merely used to crunch the numbers - to solve differential equations, to carry out numerical analyses for equations that don't have any analytical solutions. What is critical is the theoretical framework, the assumptions made and boundary conditions.

The variation you see in the predictive models is almost entirely due to the assumptions made by the researchers and what weighting the place on the various mechanisms and processes.

Do you know of any models or theories that predict cooling or a static thermal earth as CO2 rise?

Are you saying there are CO2 cooling models out there?

Really? What theoretical basis are these Cooling models based upon?

8-)

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Ajax on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm

Marla wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:56am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:24pm:

That's real science.

No question about it. Real Koch Brothers-funded science.

I'm amazed on how you manage to find so many "credible" scientist in the anti-global warming who are not really scientists at all.

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Running commentary with no facts to back you up..??

You're not chimps sister are you.......!!!!!!

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by lee on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:42pm

'Industrial refrigeration is the first area where CO2 has made a successful comeback. CO2 in industrial refrigeration is used either as the low-stage refrigerant in cascade installations, or as a secondary coolant.'

http://industrialrefrigeration.danfoss.com/knowledge-center/refrigerants/co2/

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Ajax on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:43pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:35pm:

lee wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:29pm:

Does it have to be as accurate as CO2 warming models?

In the case of the IPCC computer models you mean....

SH!T IT............SH!T OUT

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Rider on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:54pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:19pm:

I'm embarrassed for you Chump. Well almost, you are a disingenuous agenda driven useful idiot of the cause. Nothing easier to despise than religious zealots like you.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by John_Taverner on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:03pm

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Marla wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:56am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:24pm:

That's real science.

No question about it. Real Koch Brothers-funded science.

I'm amazed on how you manage to find so many "credible" scientist in the anti-global warming who are not really scientists at all.

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Running commentary with no facts to back you up..??

You're not chimps sister are you.......!!!!!!

So now we move on to personal attacks and misogyny? Why does this not surprise me?

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Chimp_Logic on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:07pm

Rider is in town ladies and gentlemen

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by lee on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:21pm

John_Taverner wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

So now we move on to personal attacks and misogyny? Why does this not surprise me?

Actually, I was going to say that Marla comes across as a numpty, an airhead. That it seemed she went to college on a cheerleading scholarship.

I was then going to go on to say that should that characterisation be incorrect, she could post a reasoned argument, with references, rather than trite cliches.

Does that fit better what you want?

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by gizmo_2655 on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:37pm

John_Taverner wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Marla wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:56am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:24pm:

That's real science.

No question about it. Real Koch Brothers-funded science.

I'm amazed on how you manage to find so many "credible" scientist in the anti-global warming who are not really scientists at all.

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Running commentary with no facts to back you up..??

You're not chimps sister are you.......!!!!!!

So now we move on to personal attacks and misogyny? Why does this not surprise me?

Try reading some of the posts by other pro-warming people on here, if you want to see personal attacks.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Chimp_Logic on May 28^th, 2015 at 8:53pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Marla wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:56am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:24pm:

That's real science.

No question about it. Real Koch Brothers-funded science.

I'm amazed on how you manage to find so many "credible" scientist in the anti-global warming who are not really scientists at all.

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Running commentary with no facts to back you up..??

You're not chimps sister are you.......!!!!!!

So now we move on to personal attacks and misogyny? Why does this not surprise me?

Try reading some of the posts by other pro-warming people on here, if you want to see personal attacks.

You have to admit that you do deserve everything you receive in this forum.

Be fair

None of the personal remarks directed at you have been inaccurate

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by gizmo_2655 on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:05pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 8:53pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Marla wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:56am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:24pm:

That's real science.

No question about it. Real Koch Brothers-funded science.

I'm amazed on how you manage to find so many "credible" scientist in the anti-global warming who are not really scientists at all.

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Running commentary with no facts to back you up..??

You're not chimps sister are you.......!!!!!!

So now we move on to personal attacks and misogyny? Why does this not surprise me?

Try reading some of the posts by other pro-warming people on here, if you want to see personal attacks.

You have to admit that you do deserve everything you receive in this forum.

Be fair

None of the personal remarks directed at you have been inaccurate

Because I don't believe in the AGW???
No, none have been deserved, OR accurate.

*edit Although I do understand why you lot responds as you do. It must be hard to argue rationally and politely when your position and beliefs are crashing down around you. Abuse, especially unwarranted abuse, is the only way you can protect your self-esteem.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Chimp_Logic on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:43pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:05pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 8:53pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Marla wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:56am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:24pm:

That's real science.

No question about it. Real Koch Brothers-funded science.

I'm amazed on how you manage to find so many "credible" scientist in the anti-global warming who are not really scientists at all.

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Running commentary with no facts to back you up..??

You're not chimps sister are you.......!!!!!!

So now we move on to personal attacks and misogyny? Why does this not surprise me?

Try reading some of the posts by other pro-warming people on here, if you want to see personal attacks.

You have to admit that you do deserve everything you receive in this forum.

Be fair

None of the personal remarks directed at you have been inaccurate

According to my log book gizmo , of the 237 abuse type attacks directed at you all but 3 can be considered inaccurate or unfair. The remaining 234 are accurate, fair and necessary.

You bring this all upon yourself by continually disseminating misinformation and deceptions in this forum.

This forum deserves better from you.

A good start would be for you to apologise in writing, then you can work on regaining some respect and credibility in here. Looks at the down hill spiral Jethro has taken since his Dr Sircus circus?

Do the right thing mate - Its not too late mate - come on, it will liberate your soul in the long term and you will be able to love children again and rejoice in their smiling faces..

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by gizmo_2655 on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:44pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:43pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:05pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 8:53pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Marla wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:56am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:24pm:

That's real science.

No question about it. Real Koch Brothers-funded science.

I'm amazed on how you manage to find so many "credible" scientist in the anti-global warming who are not really scientists at all.

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Running commentary with no facts to back you up..??

You're not chimps sister are you.......!!!!!!

So now we move on to personal attacks and misogyny? Why does this not surprise me?

Try reading some of the posts by other pro-warming people on here, if you want to see personal attacks.

You have to admit that you do deserve everything you receive in this forum.

Be fair

None of the personal remarks directed at you have been inaccurate

According to my log book gizmo , of the 237 abuse type attacks directed at you all but 3 can be considered inaccurate or unfair. The remaining 234 are accurate, fair and necessary.

You bring this all upon yourself by continually disseminating misinformation and deceptions in this forum.

This forum deserves better from you.

A good start would be for you to apologise in writing, then you can work on regaining some respect and credibility in here.

Do the right thing mate - come on, it will liberate yor soul in the long term and you will be able to love children again and rejoice in their smiling faces..

Then your log book is as inaccurate as everything else you post.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Chimp_Logic on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:50pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:44pm:

Then your log book is as inaccurate as everything else you post.

You see gizmo? The data and facts are presented to you - they stare you square in the face and you close your eyes to the truth

I am starting to wonder whether you will ever love the children again.

Look at their faces gizmo - why do you want to sacrifice them on the altar of a fire laden scorched planet? Haven't you got a beating heart in your chest man?

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Rider on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:58pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:50pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:44pm:

Then your log book is as inaccurate as everything else you post.

Oh when climate science (lol pun intended) meets emotional irrelevance. Well done Chump, you have nailed it today..not.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by gizmo_2655 on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:58pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:50pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:44pm:

Then your log book is as inaccurate as everything else you post.

LOL ah yes, the "why do you hate the children" response.........a sad and hopeless gambit, used when you can't refute the other person's evidence.

The children aren't in any danger from this mythical 'fire laden scorched planet', they are more danger from a cold and desolate planet but the greatest risk is suffering from poverty and economic collapse when the idiot warmists try to stop a natural occurrence (natural global warming) by throwing vast amounts of money down the toilet.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Ajax on May 28^th, 2015 at 10:06pm

John_Taverner wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Marla wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:56am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:24pm:

That's real science.

No question about it. Real Koch Brothers-funded science.

I'm amazed on how you manage to find so many "credible" scientist in the anti-global warming who are not really scientists at all.

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Running commentary with no facts to back you up..??

You're not chimps sister are you.......!!!!!!

So now we move on to personal attacks and misogyny? Why does this not surprise me?

She hasn't come up with one piece of evidence or a good argument, all she talks about is the kotch brothers and big oil.

A cork head indeed.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Ajax on May 28^th, 2015 at 10:09pm

You're right on gizmo, as soon as chimp is lost for words he pulls out

"child hater"

"children's future"

This is what they must be told to do at the AGW church.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 28^th, 2015 at 10:59pm

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 10:06pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Marla wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:56am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:24pm:

That's real science.

No question about it. Real Koch Brothers-funded science.

I'm amazed on how you manage to find so many "credible" scientist in the anti-global warming who are not really scientists at all.

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Running commentary with no facts to back you up..??

You're not chimps sister are you.......!!!!!!

So now we move on to personal attacks and misogyny? Why does this not surprise me?

She hasn't come up with one piece of evidence or a good argument, all she talks about is the kotch brothers and big oil.

A cork head indeed.

Ajax doesn't like evidence :D :D

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 28^th, 2015 at 11:00pm

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 10:09pm:

You're right on gizmo, as soon as chimp is lost for words he pulls out

"child hater"

"children's future"

This is what they must be told to do at the AGW church.

lol, The Jevons Paradox is strong with this one ::)

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 28^th, 2015 at 11:02pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:58pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:50pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:44pm:

Then your log book is as inaccurate as everything else you post.

Gizmo doesn't even agree with the products of combustion now ::) ::)

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 28^th, 2015 at 11:03pm

Rider wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:58pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:50pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:44pm:

Then your log book is as inaccurate as everything else you post.

Oh when climate science (lol pun intended) meets emotional irrelevance. Well done Chump, you have nailed it today..not.

Rider forgets what warren buffet said about money and emotion!!

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by gizmo_2655 on May 28^th, 2015 at 11:05pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 11:02pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:58pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:50pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:44pm:

Then your log book is as inaccurate as everything else you post.

Gizmo doesn't even agree with the products of combustion now ::) ::)

Where do you get that idea from?

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Chimp_Logic on May 29^th, 2015 at 12:09am

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Marla wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:56am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:24pm:

That's real science.

No question about it. Real Koch Brothers-funded science.

I'm amazed on how you manage to find so many "credible" scientist in the anti-global warming who are not really scientists at all.

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Running commentary with no facts to back you up..??

You're not chimps sister are you.......!!!!!!

So now we move on to personal attacks and misogyny? Why does this not surprise me?

Try reading some of the posts by other pro-warming people on here, if you want to see personal attacks.

Are you implying that there are actual human beings walking around on the surface of this planet who actually believe the earth isn't warming?

What sort of asylums do you hang around in gizmo?

If I didn't know you better and we weren't very close friends, I would swear that you were trying to openly lie to the children of this world.

I hope this isn't true mate. I really do mate.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 29^th, 2015 at 12:27am

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 11:05pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 11:02pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:58pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:50pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:44pm:

Then your log book is as inaccurate as everything else you post.

Gizmo doesn't even agree with the products of combustion now ::) ::)

Where do you get that idea from?

You saying global warming was a natural occurence: obviously you are not accounting for the man made CO2 ;) ;)

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by rabbitoh08 on May 29^th, 2015 at 1:25am

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Marla wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:56am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:24pm:

That's real science.

No question about it. Real Koch Brothers-funded science.

I'm amazed on how you manage to find so many "credible" scientist in the anti-global warming who are not really scientists at all.

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Running commentary with no facts to back you up..??

You're not chimps sister are you.......!!!!!!

So now we move on to personal attacks and misogyny? Why does this not surprise me?

Try reading some of the posts by other pro-warming people on here, if you want to see personal attacks.

By "personal attacks" Gizmo - are you referring to people that show you up to be a bald-faced liar?

Do you remember when you told us that global glacial mass balance is "going up"?

It was on this thread:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1432639461/24#24

You were asked time and time again to provide evidence to support your statement - but you never did, did you. Because you are a liar.

I am sorry if pointing out that you tell lies is what you consider a "personal attack". But if your don't like it - perhaps you should stop telling lies.

Why don't you start right here. You told us that global glacial mass balance is "going up".

How about your show us some evidence to support that - or, if you can't to that - apologise to the forum for telling lies.

Could you do that Gizmo?

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Marla on May 29^th, 2015 at 3:17am

lee wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:21pm:

I believe I have posted videos that clearly demonstrate the Koch Brothers involvement in covering up global warming by hiring the most inane scientist who spew noting but b.s. for the likes of yourself.

https://youtu.be/O0v1DTp0a10

Many like this one exist all over Youtube. Find them for yourself.

Seems to me you're the "airhead" by recycling an argument that has been resolved.

Have a nice day

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Marla on May 29^th, 2015 at 3:31am

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Good science you say? What is that? Any conspiracy website full of disgruntled scientist who either had their thesis shot down more times then you asking for a prom date or have no qualified academic degree to begin with?

Like I told you, Bat Boy, keep on posting your Koch-funded horsehockey to delude yourself that you're actually making a difference from the confines of your parents basement.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by copperinternetISARORT on May 29^th, 2015 at 3:35am

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 1:25am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Marla wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:56am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:24pm:

That's real science.

No question about it. Real Koch Brothers-funded science.

I'm amazed on how you manage to find so many "credible" scientist in the anti-global warming who are not really scientists at all.

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Running commentary with no facts to back you up..??

You're not chimps sister are you.......!!!!!!

So now we move on to personal attacks and misogyny? Why does this not surprise me?

Try reading some of the posts by other pro-warming people on here, if you want to see personal attacks.

gizmos indirect hate, ... I mean love!??!, for the kids knows no bounds. He will start writing a story about a new identity that will pretend to do that rather swiftly I am almost unsure love hate love hate rarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-?

:D

yay liberal party and lomborg and stuff etc.... I am a high upperclass sheeple and stuff ;) ;) ;) ;)

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by lee on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:34am

Marla wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 3:17am:

I believe I have posted videos that clearly demonstrate the Koch Brothers involvement in covering up global warming

Marla wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 3:17am:

Seems to me you're the "airhead" by recycling an argument that has been resolved.

I don't bother myself with youtube, a classic waste of time.

Which argument has been resolved? The Science is settled, mantra?

I think you spend too much time reading "The Wit and Wisdom of Barry O", which is a very short publication.

Actually I just viewed that Youtube; hilarious. So much truth crammed into so little time.

Temperatures flat according to the satellite data.

Sea level rise is not accelerating. (if you see a trend map, the line is linear.)

I forgot the polar Bears. see http://polarbearscience.com/ by Dr Susan Crockford

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by gizmo_2655 on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 1:25am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Marla wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:56am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:24pm:

That's real science.

No question about it. Real Koch Brothers-funded science.

I'm amazed on how you manage to find so many "credible" scientist in the anti-global warming who are not really scientists at all.

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Running commentary with no facts to back you up..??

You're not chimps sister are you.......!!!!!!

So now we move on to personal attacks and misogyny? Why does this not surprise me?

Try reading some of the posts by other pro-warming people on here, if you want to see personal attacks.

Seriously rabbit, give it a rest, it was not a lie, just because you believe it to be wrong doesn't make me 'bald-faced liar', which incidentally I have not been "shown to be" as you claim, only accused( and wrongly too).

I did provide some links to back up my claim, which you misinterpreted as not showing an increase in overall Antarctic ice mass. And given the way you work, any other links I use to show either a 'slowing' of the predicted/claimed Arctic ice loss, or even a relative increase in the yearly average ice mass at the Arctic will be rejected due to which site hosts the links, rather than who wrote and researched the paper or the contents of the study.

p.s if you want to identify a 'bald-faced lie' try one of these: "The science is settled", "98% of scientists agree with AGW" etc. THOSE are outright, deliberate falsehoods, designed to deceive (which is the definition of a lie)

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Chimp_Logic on May 29^th, 2015 at 2:44pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

Seriously rabbit, give it a rest, it was not a lie, just because you believe it to be wrong doesn't make me 'bald-faced liar',..)

Look gizmo mate, you have been exposed on this point categorically and emphatically - rabbit has demonstrated that you in fact wilfully lied to this honourable forum.

At least have the courage and integrity to apologise to everyone on Ozpolitics so we can all move on from this. You cant just gallop in here and deliberately lie and expect to get away with it. Surely you have some self respect left. Apologise and then take a 3 month break from this board so that you can take a long good look at yourself in the mirror mate. Apologise to yourself and then you can return with a small amount of integrity and credibility.

As it stands your posts are embarrassing at the moment - rabbit is urinating and defecating all over your smelly carcass and all you can do is continue to add lie after lie after lie after lie....its pathetic gizmo - do it for the children mate

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Ajax on May 29^th, 2015 at 4:45pm

Marla wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 3:31am:

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Little miss muffet you sound like everything is a conspiracy to you.

Are the failed predictions of the IPCC climate models about how hot is should have been today not a conspiracy to you even though observations have shown them to be wrong.

This lead them to saying stupid things like the heat has gone into the oceans, first they said the top 700 metres, then they changed it to the deep oceans.

But since 2002 we have the ARGO system a 3000 strong bunch of buoys positioned all over the worlds oceans and taking temperatures down to 2000 metres deep.

Guess what the oceans aren't heating up the way the IPCC says they are, or the Maldives would have been under water now like the y predicted.

What about the signature effect of Anthropogenic global warming which is suppose to warm the tropopause according to those crappy climate models in their computers you know the HOT SPOT.

Well miss muffet weather balloons and satellites have failed to find this hot spot.

Should alarm bells be going off in your head right now, i' mean every thing the IPCC (the experts) have said has all fallen in a heap.......??????

I guess you think that the world trade centre buildings fell in accordance with the report that was published in less than 12 months while they started to clean the biggest forensic site up just after 3 or 4 weeks.

If I told you that controlled demolition was used on the trade centre buildings you would say another conspiracy theory.

With youth like you coming through the system, the oligarchy isn't only going to have its cake but they will eat it to.

All at your expense... so wake up FFS.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by gizmo_2655 on May 29^th, 2015 at 4:57pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 2:44pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

Seriously rabbit, give it a rest, it was not a lie, just because you believe it to be wrong doesn't make me 'bald-faced liar',..)

No, actually he hasn't. And posting in big letters won't change that.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by gizmo_2655 on May 29^th, 2015 at 5:00pm

Ajax wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 4:45pm:

Marla wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 3:31am:

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Well, Ajax, I certainly would say that controlled demolition of the WTC was a conspiracy theory.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by rabbitoh08 on May 29^th, 2015 at 5:18pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 4:57pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 2:44pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

Seriously rabbit, give it a rest, it was not a lie, just because you believe it to be wrong doesn't make me 'bald-faced liar',..)

No, actually he hasn't. And posting in big letters won't change that.

Actually - you have Gizmo.

You told us that global glacial mass balance is "going up".

This is a clear falsehood. Not a matter of opinion. A lie.

We know it is a lie because you have not posted a single piece of evidence to support that ridiculous claim.
Not one single piece.

Then to make matters worse, you have compounded your lie by pretending that you did provide evidence.

You didn't Gizmo. Not one single piece.

You could easily prove me wrong right now by re-posting any evidence you claim to have posted. Why don't you do that Gizmo?

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by gizmo_2655 on May 29^th, 2015 at 8:49pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 12:27am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 11:05pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 11:02pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:58pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:50pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:44pm:

Then your log book is as inaccurate as everything else you post.

Gizmo doesn't even agree with the products of combustion now ::) ::)

Where do you get that idea from?

You saying global warming was a natural occurence: obviously you are not accounting for the man made CO2 ;) ;)

But does Co2 actually 'cause' global warming??? That IS after all the basic point of dispute about agw.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by gizmo_2655 on May 29^th, 2015 at 8:55pm

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 5:18pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 4:57pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 2:44pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

Seriously rabbit, give it a rest, it was not a lie, just because you believe it to be wrong doesn't make me 'bald-faced liar',..)

No, actually he hasn't. And posting in big letters won't change that.

I did, you just refused to accept that it showed what I said.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by rabbitoh08 on May 30^th, 2015 at 8:19pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 8:49pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 12:27am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 11:05pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 11:02pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:58pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:50pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:44pm:

Then your log book is as inaccurate as everything else you post.

Gizmo doesn't even agree with the products of combustion now ::) ::)

Where do you get that idea from?

You saying global warming was a natural occurence: obviously you are not accounting for the man made CO2 ;) ;)

But does Co2 actually 'cause' global warming??? That IS after all the basic point of dispute about agw.

Gizmo,

you told us that "global glacial mass balance is "going up"."

Could you please who us some evidence to support this - or apologise to the forum for telling lies.

Please stop running away.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by rabbitoh08 on May 30^th, 2015 at 8:22pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 8:55pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 5:18pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 4:57pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 2:44pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

Seriously rabbit, give it a rest, it was not a lie, just because you believe it to be wrong doesn't make me 'bald-faced liar',..)

No, actually he hasn't. And posting in big letters won't change that.

I did, you just refused to accept that it showed what I said.

No you didn't Gizmo. Don't make your lie worse.

If you claim you did post evidence - then it will be easy for you to re-post it right her and prove me wrong.

Do it Gizmo.

You can't - can you. You are a liar that has been caught red-handed telling lies.

Come on Gizmo - prove me wrong. Show us your "evidence" that supports your statement that global glacial mass balance is "going up".

We are waiting Gizmo.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Chimp_Logic on May 30^th, 2015 at 8:50pm

Come on gizmo, rabbit has issued a valid challenge for you to entertain.

Accept rabbit's challenge like a real man, and then apologise

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by rabbitoh08 on May 30^th, 2015 at 8:57pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 30^th, 2015 at 8:50pm:

Come on gizmo, rabbit has issued a valid challenge for you to entertain.

Accept rabbit's challenge like a real man, and then apologise

I think it is fairly clear that Gizmo is neither real man, nor woman.

Gizmo is just a pathetic little liar - that when called on it runs away and makes stupid excuses..

Here is your big chance Gizmo. Prove me wrong. Show me to be the idiot.

Please post your evidence to support your statement that global glacial mass balance is "going up"

You could make me look so silly by doing that. Why don't you?

BTW - just to help you - don't look at the World Glacier Monitoring Service website - they won't help you:
The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to be negative, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 0.89 metres water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2013
http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum13.html

Maybe you could find a convincing Andrew Bolt blog page to post for us?

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Marla on May 31^st, 2015 at 2:55am

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 10:06pm:

She hasn't come up with one piece of evidence or a good argument, all she talks about is the kotch brothers and big oil.

A cork head indeed.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Dnarever on May 31^st, 2015 at 7:47am

IPCC models vs Observed Data

The models used in the comparison look about 10 years out of date, wonder what a genuine comparison would look like. My understanding is that current modelling is pretty accurate.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Dnarever on May 31^st, 2015 at 7:48am

Marla wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 2:55am:

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 10:06pm:

She hasn't come up with one piece of evidence or a good argument, all she talks about is the kotch brothers and big oil.

A cork head indeed.

Yes Tony advises women to think when doing it.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Ajax on May 31^st, 2015 at 9:32am

Dnarever wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 7:47am:

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by lee on May 31^st, 2015 at 11:36am

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 30^th, 2015 at 8:57pm:

The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to be negative, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 0.89 metres water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2013
http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum13.html

'Thus a study has been carried out to find the change in the extent of Himalayan glaciers during the last decade using IRS LISS III images of 2000/01/02 and 2010/11. Two thousand and eighteen glaciers representing climatically diverse terrains in the Himalaya were mapped and monitored. It includes glaciers of Karakoram, Himachal, Zanskar, Uttarakhand, Nepal and Sikkim regions. Among these, 1752 glaciers (86.8%) we re observed having stable fronts (no change in the snout position and area of ablation zone), 248 (12.3%) exhibited retreat and 18 (0.9%) of them exhibited advancement of snout. The net loss in 10,250.68 sq. km area of the 2018 glaciers put together was found to be 20.94 sq. km or 0.2% (+/- 2.5 % of 20.94 sq. km).

http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/106/07/1008.pdf

From the World Glacier Monitoring -

'Mass balance values for the observation period 2012/13 have been reported from more than 125 glaciers worldwide.'

Compared to over 2,000 glaciers in the Himalayas alone. I can see where those figures really stack up. Do I need a \sarc tag?

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Dnarever on May 31^st, 2015 at 6:42pm

Ajax wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 9:32am:

Dnarever wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 7:47am:

[IMG]

OK so it isn't 10 years out of date, it is marked as 1990. it is 25 years out of date.

Nice of you to point that out, obviously the comparisons are meaningless.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Sir Bobby on May 31^st, 2015 at 7:55pm

Ajax is sure putting up some powerful arguments backed up with graphs & charts - well done!

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 11:05am

lee wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 11:36am:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 30^th, 2015 at 8:57pm:

You can't measure everything: it's called THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE :D :D and is why all measurement is probablity and all good science is associated with error value.

** thank for playing ;) ;)

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 11:10am

Bobby. wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 7:55pm:

Ajax is sure putting up some powerful arguments backed up with graphs & charts - well done!

They'd be even more impressive if the sources were given :D :D

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 11:13am

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 8:49pm:

But does Co2 actually 'cause' global warming??? That IS after all the basic point of dispute about agw.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829145.000-ocean-pump-keeps-northern-hemisphere-hot.html#.VWz6hdKqqkp

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829145.000-ocean-pump-keeps-northern-hemisphere-hot.html#.VWz6hdKqqkp

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829145.000-ocean-pump-keeps-northern-hemisphere-hot.html#.VWz6hdKqqkp

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829145.000-ocean-pump-keeps-northern-hemisphere-hot.html#.VWz6hdKqqkp

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Ajax on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 6:55pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 11:10am:

Bobby. wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 7:55pm:

Ajax is sure putting up some powerful arguments backed up with graphs & charts - well done!

They'd be even more impressive if the sources were given :D :D

Look at the fine print Cerberus its all there.... 8-)

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Dnarever on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 7:01pm

Bobby. wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 7:55pm:

Ajax is sure putting up some powerful arguments backed up with graphs & charts - well done!

Yes he is comparing data with 25 year old models. Hard to see any relevance at all.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by lee on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 7:11pm

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 7:01pm:

Yes he is comparing data with 25 year old models. Hard to see any relevance at all.

So the models aren't being updated?

or perhaps AR5models from the draft and final reports.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 7:56pm

Ajax wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 6:55pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 11:10am:

Bobby. wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 7:55pm:

Ajax is sure putting up some powerful arguments backed up with graphs & charts - well done!

They'd be even more impressive if the sources were given :D :D

Look at the fine print Cerberus its all there.... 8-)

No it's not :)

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Ajax on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 10:12pm

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 7:01pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 7:55pm:

Ajax is sure putting up some powerful arguments backed up with graphs & charts - well done!

Yes he is comparing data with 25 year old models. Hard to see any relevance at all.

Yes the 1990 predictions about today right now have FAILED....!!!!!!

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by John_Taverner on Jun 3^rd, 2015 at 9:34am

A few preliminary questions:

What were the assumptions on emission levels on the original studies?

Are you comparing apples with pears? (eg University of Alabama Hootenany Lower Trop. temperatures instead of Surface Temperatures)

With that graph, who was the manufacturer this time ? Was it the Gray Nomad (Bob Tisdale) ? Watts up with my brain Watts? Jo SuperNova or Dazzling Dave Evans?

Has Christopher Monkton been manufacturing graphs again?
or
Did McIntyred of Oil and Gas Exploration fix the graph himself?

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jun 3^rd, 2015 at 10:54am

Rocket Scientist
In this article in the Australian newspaper David wrote “I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.” Ever since, a main warmist response to David’s critiques of the carbon dioxide theory is that he claimed to be a rocket scientist but isn’t (example), rather than to argue with the data or the logic.

He said that once, in order to identify himself to the political hierarchy in Canberra as that guy who wrote a world-leading intellectual product in carbon accounting for the Australian Greenhouse Office. No, David never worked on rockets. Yes, David does work at that level. “Rocket scientist” is widely used in the US to mean anyone capable of doing rocket science, and applies to most hard technical PhDs at the handful of top institutions (see David’s background). Or at least that is what it meant in common parlance in the US in the 1980s. As it happens, after Stanford David interviewed at JPL (NASA) in Pasadena, but decided on a Silicon Valley job instead.

Naturally we would urge you to look at the contents of what is said, not on who says it. The latter leads to authoritarianism and corruption, is profoundly unscientific, and goes against the Enlightenment (see this introduction).

Rocket Scientist
In this article in the Australian newspaper David wrote “I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.” Ever since, a main warmist response to David’s critiques of the carbon dioxide theory is that he claimed to be a rocket scientist but isn’t (example), rather than to argue with the data or the logic.

He said that once, in order to identify himself to the political hierarchy in Canberra as that guy who wrote a world-leading intellectual product in carbon accounting for the Australian Greenhouse Office. No, David never worked on rockets. Yes, David does work at that level. “Rocket scientist” is widely used in the US to mean anyone capable of doing rocket science, and applies to most hard technical PhDs at the handful of top institutions (see David’s background). Or at least that is what it meant in common parlance in the US in the 1980s. As it happens, after Stanford David interviewed at JPL (NASA) in Pasadena, but decided on a Silicon Valley job instead.

Naturally we would urge you to look at the contents of what is said, not on who says it. The latter leads to authoritarianism and corruption, is profoundly unscientific, and goes against the Enlightenment (see this introduction).

Rocket Scientist
In this article in the Australian newspaper David wrote “I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.” Ever since, a main warmist response to David’s critiques of the carbon dioxide theory is that he claimed to be a rocket scientist but isn’t (example), rather than to argue with the data or the logic.

He said that once, in order to identify himself to the political hierarchy in Canberra as that guy who wrote a world-leading intellectual product in carbon accounting for the Australian Greenhouse Office. No, David never worked on rockets. Yes, David does work at that level. “Rocket scientist” is widely used in the US to mean anyone capable of doing rocket science, and applies to most hard technical PhDs at the handful of top institutions (see David’s background). Or at least that is what it meant in common parlance in the US in the 1980s. As it happens, after Stanford David interviewed at JPL (NASA) in Pasadena, but decided on a Silicon Valley job instead.

Naturally we would urge you to look at the contents of what is said, not on who says it. The latter leads to authoritarianism and corruption, is profoundly unscientific, and goes against the Enlightenment (see this introduction).

::)

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by lee on Jun 3^rd, 2015 at 12:24pm

Wow, repetition sure makes it more powerful.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2015 at 10:54am:

Naturally we would urge you to look at the contents of what is said, not on who says it.

Naturally you should also look at his qualifications. He is not a rocket scientist; is he a "climate scientist"?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2015 at 10:54am:

who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol

So is he some type of accountant? You do realise for Kyoto, they didn't include native forests?

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jun 3^rd, 2015 at 2:20pm

..flippin' 'eck :o :o

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Ajax on Jun 3^rd, 2015 at 5:54pm

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2015 at 9:34am:

Listen John if you have a document that proves the IPCC predictions were indeed correct please present it.

Others its just hot air my friend.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by rabbitoh08 on Jun 4^th, 2015 at 1:19am

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 1:25am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Marla wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:56am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:24pm:

That's real science.

No question about it. Real Koch Brothers-funded science.

I'm amazed on how you manage to find so many "credible" scientist in the anti-global warming who are not really scientists at all.

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Running commentary with no facts to back you up..??

You're not chimps sister are you.......!!!!!!

So now we move on to personal attacks and misogyny? Why does this not surprise me?

Try reading some of the posts by other pro-warming people on here, if you want to see personal attacks.

Seriously rabbit, give it a rest, it was not a lie,

No Gizmo - it was a lie. You said global glacial mass balance was "going up". That is a lie. Not a matter of opinion

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

just because you believe it to be wrong doesn't make me 'bald-faced liar',

I don't "believe" it to be wrong. All published empirical data says it is wrong. you are a liar.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

which incidentally I have not been "shown to be" as you claim, only accused( and wrongly too).

No - you have been shown to be a liar. The data from the organisations tha measure global glacial mass balance has been shown to you many times. You are a liar.

Here ist is again liar:
http://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

I did provide some links to back up my claim, which you misinterpreted as not showing an increase in overall Antarctic ice mass.

No you didn't liar. You showed no evidence to support your claim that global glacial mass balance was "going up".

Prove me wrong and re-post your links. Come on liar - prove me wrong.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

And given the way you work, any other links I use to show either a 'slowing' of the predicted/claimed Arctic ice loss, or even a relative increase in the yearly average ice mass at the Arctic will be rejected due to which site hosts the links, rather than who wrote and researched the paper or the contents of the study.

You said global glacial mass balance was "going up". That is a lie.

We are waiting liar - show us evidence - don't change the subject

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

p.s if you want to identify a 'bald-faced lie' try one of these: "The science is settled", "98% of scientists agree with AGW" etc. THOSE are outright, deliberate falsehoods, designed to deceive (which is the definition of a lie)

You said global glacial mass balance was "going up". That is a lie.

We are waiting liar - show us evidence - don't change the subject.

What a nasty, pathetic little liar you are. How many times are you going to run away from the fact tag you were caught red-handed telling lies?

You said: "global glacial mass balance was "going up"."

Still waiting liar to see any evidence of this. Actually - we all know there is no evidence of this - we are waiting to see what sort of human being you are. You were caught telling lies. And you try to squirm out of it like a 3 year old

What a pathetic piece of poo you are.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by John_Taverner on Jun 4^th, 2015 at 6:40am

Ajax wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2015 at 5:54pm:

Listen John if you have a document that proves the IPCC predictions were indeed correct please present it.

Others its just hot air my friend.

The trouble is that you wouldn't recognise anything that showed predictions to be correct because it's against your religion. (Denial of Climate Science). You place your faith in born-again Southern Christians like Roy Spencer.

You maintain that there has been no warming for 17 years, yet you refuse to generate a simple line of best fit using a spreadsheet to prove your point.

You are the hot air merchant, not me. My data is published empirical data that is backed up by countless other scientific studies.

You prefer your global temperatures to be Southern Fried (cooked), because your agenda doesn't care about the facts - just about playing down any evidence that would interrupt your status quo.

Well, it really doesn't matter what a few eccentrics with their fingers in their ears think. Eventually you people will die off anyway. The vast majority of your "heroes" are in their geriatric decay stages.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by innocentbystander. on Jun 4^th, 2015 at 7:01am

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 4^th, 2015 at 1:19am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 1:25am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Marla wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:56am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:24pm:

That's real science.

No question about it. Real Koch Brothers-funded science.

I'm amazed on how you manage to find so many "credible" scientist in the anti-global warming who are not really scientists at all.

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Running commentary with no facts to back you up..??

You're not chimps sister are you.......!!!!!!

So now we move on to personal attacks and misogyny? Why does this not surprise me?

Try reading some of the posts by other pro-warming people on here, if you want to see personal attacks.

Seriously rabbit, give it a rest, it was not a lie,

No Gizmo - it was a lie. You said global glacial mass balance was "going up". That is a lie. Not a matter of opinion

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

just because you believe it to be wrong doesn't make me 'bald-faced liar',

I don't "believe" it to be wrong. All published empirical data says it is wrong. you are a liar.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

which incidentally I have not been "shown to be" as you claim, only accused( and wrongly too).

I did provide some links to back up my claim, which you misinterpreted as not showing an increase in overall Antarctic ice mass.

You said global glacial mass balance was "going up". That is a lie.

We are waiting liar - show us evidence - don't change the subject

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

Do you need a paper bag?, I think you are hyperventilating ;D

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by John_Taverner on Jun 4^th, 2015 at 9:02am

lee wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2015 at 12:24pm:

Wow, repetition sure makes it more powerful.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2015 at 10:54am:

Naturally we would urge you to look at the contents of what is said, not on who says it.

Naturally you should also look at his qualifications. He is not a rocket scientist; is he a "climate scientist"?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2015 at 10:54am:

who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol

So is he some type of accountant? You do realise for Kyoto, they didn't include native forests?

This is so funny to see Lee running down the qualifications of a climate denialist. Have another cocoa Lee.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by John_Taverner on Jun 4^th, 2015 at 9:06am

innocentbystander. wrote on Jun 4^th, 2015 at 7:01am:

Do you need a paper bag?, I think you are hyperventilating ;D

How about you innocentbystander. Will you help Ajax generate a graph and a line of best fit using a spreadsheet? No Rocket science qualifications required.

It would make a change from useless comments.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by lee on Jun 4^th, 2015 at 11:24am

'This is so funny to see Lee running down the qualifications of a climate denialist.'

Really? Link Please. I merely asked his qualifications. There was no link to ascertain his name.

Just like the graphs you can't provide, the link is not there.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by John_Taverner on Jun 4^th, 2015 at 3:59pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2015 at 2:20pm:

..flippin' 'eck :o :o

looney tunes.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by John_Taverner on Jun 4^th, 2015 at 4:06pm

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/07/quote-of-day-from-david-evans-rocket.html

Quote:

Before David Evans does plug in Leif Svalgaard's TSI data and runs the model again, I'd say he also needs to sort out his temperature concoction. From what I've read he didn't just mess with TSI, he also cobbled together temperature data from multiple sources combining surface and lower troposphere temperature data sets. Then he smoothed his temperature cocktail, quite inexplicably, with a 25 year running mean.

That sounds uncannily like Ajax's graph.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by lee on Jun 4^th, 2015 at 4:42pm

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 4^th, 2015 at 4:06pm:

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/07/quote-of-day-from-david-evans-rocket.html

You quote Miriam- OMG.

BTW he even admits he's not a climate scientist.

But then; on your planet, Warmista, are you not allowed to disagree with tribe members?

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by John_Taverner on Jun 4^th, 2015 at 8:24pm

lee wrote on Jun 4^th, 2015 at 4:42pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 4^th, 2015 at 4:06pm:

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/07/quote-of-day-from-david-evans-rocket.html

You quote Miriam- OMG.

BTW he even admits he's not a climate scientist.

But then; on your planet, Warmista, are you not allowed to disagree with tribe members?

Nice try.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Ajax on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 12:26pm

PICTURE PAINTS A THOUSAND WORDS.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by John_Taverner on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 8:06pm

Now I understand why chimp logic just posts pictures of chimps.

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 8:53pm

Ajax wrote on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 12:26pm:

PICTURE PAINTS A THOUSAND WORDS.

lol, no need for interpretation ay ;) ;) ;) ;)

Lol, I wonder why they bother having words in scientific documents if only pictures matter ::) ::)

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 8:53pm

flip

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Ajax on Jun 7^th, 2015 at 10:42am

Title: Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Post by Ajax on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 2:45pm

When has CO2 ever controlled temperature here on Earth...???

Come on pouch please tell us..???