Remember me
▼ Content

Climate model projections compared to observations


Climate model projections compared to observations18-04-2017 19:22
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

There is a lot of discussion about how model predictions measure up to observations indeed many claim that they are next to useless.

Real climate have made a page that shows notable climate predictions compared to what actually happened, no need to have people tell you what they were look for yourself.





some examples,

I expect to get abuse for posting this.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
18-04-2017 20:04
Tim the plumber
★★★☆☆
(956)
So in your world the IPCC's forcasts were made in 1984 were they?
Edited on 18-04-2017 20:04
18-04-2017 20:10
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
Tim the plumber wrote:
So in your world the IPCC's forcasts were made in 1984 were they?


Where do I say IPCC forecasts?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
25-04-2017 17:10
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
So in your world the IPCC's forcasts were made in 1984 were they?


Where do I say IPCC forecasts?


Those are all models. Because they meet the "hindcast" has no connection to whether they meet forecasts or not.

There is no line that shows the actual temperature averages.

Dr. Hansen is notoriously pro-climate change who also blames all of the weather variability upon climate change. And other studies have shown him to be wrong on that count at least.
25-04-2017 17:18
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
So in your world the IPCC's forcasts were made in 1984 were they?


Where do I say IPCC forecasts?


Those are all models. Because they meet the "hindcast" has no connection to whether they meet forecasts or not.

There is no line that shows the actual temperature averages.

Dr. Hansen is notoriously pro-climate change who also blames all of the weather variability upon climate change. And other studies have shown him to be wrong on that count at least.


Thanks for bumping the thread with your rant. You seem to have it in for certain scientists if they say things you don't like, I can imagine you making death threats in your spare time. However people can check what what said compared to what actually happened with my link and don't need to take your word for it.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
25-04-2017 17:42
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
So in your world the IPCC's forcasts were made in 1984 were they?


Where do I say IPCC forecasts?


Those are all models. Because they meet the "hindcast" has no connection to whether they meet forecasts or not.

There is no line that shows the actual temperature averages.

Dr. Hansen is notoriously pro-climate change who also blames all of the weather variability upon climate change. And other studies have shown him to be wrong on that count at least.


Thanks for bumping the thread with your rant. You seem to have it in for certain scientists if they say things you don't like, I can imagine you making death threats in your spare time. However people can check what what said compared to what actually happened with my link and don't need to take your word for it.


I like the way you say "Duuuhhhhhh" when you're caught with your pants up.
25-04-2017 17:45
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
So in your world the IPCC's forcasts were made in 1984 were they?


Where do I say IPCC forecasts?


Those are all models. Because they meet the "hindcast" has no connection to whether they meet forecasts or not.

There is no line that shows the actual temperature averages.

Dr. Hansen is notoriously pro-climate change who also blames all of the weather variability upon climate change. And other studies have shown him to be wrong on that count at least.


Thanks for bumping the thread with your rant. You seem to have it in for certain scientists if they say things you don't like, I can imagine you making death threats in your spare time. However people can check what what said compared to what actually happened with my link and don't need to take your word for it.


I like the way you say "Duuuhhhhhh" when you're caught with your pants up.


I dont get it, is this what counts as a joke as when you are senile?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
25-04-2017 19:24
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
spot wrote: I dont get it


As if that was something new.
26-04-2017 03:22
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
spot wrote:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

There is a lot of discussion about how model predictions measure up to observations indeed many claim that they are next to useless.

Real climate have made a page that shows notable climate predictions compared to what actually happened, no need to have people tell you what they were look for yourself.





some examples,

I expect to get abuse for posting this.


Maybe I can relieve you of some of the abuse by citing a post in WUWT by Bob Tisdale concerning the frequent adjustments made in the GISSTEMP Land-Ocean Temperature Index, all to show more temperature rise and seemingly to make global warming more ominous.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/16/the-three-faces-of-the-giss-land-ocean-temperature-index-loti/
26-04-2017 15:34
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Frescomexico wrote:
spot wrote:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

There is a lot of discussion about how model predictions measure up to observations indeed many claim that they are next to useless.

Real climate have made a page that shows notable climate predictions compared to what actually happened, no need to have people tell you what they were look for yourself.





some examples,

I expect to get abuse for posting this.


Maybe I can relieve you of some of the abuse by citing a post in WUWT by Bob Tisdale concerning the frequent adjustments made in the GISSTEMP Land-Ocean Temperature Index, all to show more temperature rise and seemingly to make global warming more ominous.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/16/the-three-faces-of-the-giss-land-ocean-temperature-index-loti/


GISS is passing out data that has been manipulated by not making sufficient corrections for ground based temperature measurements in high growth urban areas. Here is something a hell of a lot more informative:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg

This is the actual temperature curves as shown by satellite measurements.

What we see is that there is little to nothing in the way of unusual temperature changes that are outlines so dramatically in the other charts.
26-04-2017 15:41
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
spot wrote:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

There is a lot of discussion about how model predictions measure up to observations indeed many claim that they are next to useless.

Real climate have made a page that shows notable climate predictions compared to what actually happened, no need to have people tell you what they were look for yourself.





some examples,

I expect to get abuse for posting this.


Maybe I can relieve you of some of the abuse by citing a post in WUWT by Bob Tisdale concerning the frequent adjustments made in the GISSTEMP Land-Ocean Temperature Index, all to show more temperature rise and seemingly to make global warming more ominous.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/16/the-three-faces-of-the-giss-land-ocean-temperature-index-loti/


GISS is passing out data that has been manipulated by not making sufficient corrections for ground based temperature measurements in high growth urban areas. Here is something a hell of a lot more informative:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg

This is the actual temperature curves as shown by satellite measurements.

What we see is that there is little to nothing in the way of unusual temperature changes that are outlines so dramatically in the other charts.

Take another look. The satellite data shows a rise of about 0.6 C since 1979, which is in very close agreement with the GISS data. It's just a lot noisier.
26-04-2017 15:54
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
spot wrote:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

There is a lot of discussion about how model predictions measure up to observations indeed many claim that they are next to useless.

Real climate have made a page that shows notable climate predictions compared to what actually happened, no need to have people tell you what they were look for yourself.





some examples,

I expect to get abuse for posting this.


Maybe I can relieve you of some of the abuse by citing a post in WUWT by Bob Tisdale concerning the frequent adjustments made in the GISSTEMP Land-Ocean Temperature Index, all to show more temperature rise and seemingly to make global warming more ominous.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/16/the-three-faces-of-the-giss-land-ocean-temperature-index-loti/


GISS is passing out data that has been manipulated by not making sufficient corrections for ground based temperature measurements in high growth urban areas. Here is something a hell of a lot more informative:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg

This is the actual temperature curves as shown by satellite measurements.

What we see is that there is little to nothing in the way of unusual temperature changes that are outlines so dramatically in the other charts.

Take another look. The satellite data shows a rise of about 0.6 C since 1979, which is in very close agreement with the GISS data. It's just a lot noisier.


On your best day you have a lot of problems reading your own signature let alone a charge the plainly shows temperature peaks no more than normal. But a fool and his money are soon parted and your living off of public assistance is coming to an end.
09-11-2017 07:54
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(621)
spot wrote:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

There is a lot of discussion about how model predictions measure up to observations indeed many claim that they are next to useless.

Real climate have made a page that shows notable climate predictions compared to what actually happened, no need to have people tell you what they were look for yourself.





some examples,

I expect to get abuse for posting this.


I read through the list, and see that you did get what you were expecting. The Hansen et al graph is very interesting, in that it apparently was published in 1988, so the 1984 starting point is likely. At least it's not that far off from 1988.

And they didn't try to hide anything, because they clearly show the forecast/backcast line and the publication date.

But anyway, I happened to see this thread and thought it was interesting, because I had no idea that someone had nailed it like Hansen did.

Something else that I found amusing is that Wake jumped on you about the same thing he kept jumping on me about, which was his inability to read a freaking graph. I see that you tried to straighten him out too. I think he finally got it.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
10-11-2017 17:24
litesong
★★★★☆
(1861)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners & many time threatener wake-me-up" wiffed:... shows temperature peaks no more than normal.
Of course, temperatures are way over normal. As always, "racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" doesn't mention decades long languid solar TSI & 11 year low TSI (including a 3+ year low TSI setting a 100 year record). TSI has been so low that anti-AGW pukes have been predicting very low surface Earth temperatures for 20 years & for 20 years NEVER are accurate. Earth surface temps have been ABOVE the 20th century average for 390+ STRAIGHT months, the last 3 years setting consecutive Earth surface high temperatures.
10-11-2017 17:29
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
litesong wrote:
[quote] "old"


How's your potty training coming along?
11-11-2017 02:07
litesong
★★★★☆
(1861)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: How's your potty training...
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" is not only an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener, it has potty mouth aspirations, too.
Edited on 11-11-2017 02:08
11-11-2017 16:28
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: How's your potty training...
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" is not only an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener, it has potty mouth aspirations, too.


If you scream for mommy she'll change you again. Though I'm sure she's getting tired of you.
11-11-2017 17:07
litesong
★★★★☆
(1861)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: If you scream for mommy...
Either, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" grew up without a mommy to scream at or she wouldn't let it scream at her. Which ever its history, the brokenness of "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" is completed by its choices to threaten.
Edited on 11-11-2017 17:08
11-11-2017 20:27
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: If you scream for mommy...
Either, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" grew up without a mommy to scream at or she wouldn't let it scream at her. Which ever its history, the brokenness of "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" is completed by its choices to threaten.


So no matter how loudly you cry mommy won't come and change your diaper?
12-11-2017 03:45
litesong
★★★★☆
(1861)
Wake wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: If you scream for mommy...
Either, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" grew up without a mommy to scream at or she wouldn't let it scream at her. Which ever its history, the brokenness of "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" is completed by its choices to threaten.
.... cry mommy....
The psychological breakage to "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" explains its ability to threaten.... & the rest of its name. However, it has no excuse.
12-11-2017 16:37
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
litesong wrote:
Wake wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: If you scream for mommy...
Either, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" grew up without a mommy to scream at or she wouldn't let it scream at her. Which ever its history, the brokenness of "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" is completed by its choices to threaten.
.... cry mommy....
The psychological breakage to "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" explains its ability to threaten.... & the rest of its name. However, it has no excuse.


Still crying for mommy to come save you from those mean people that know more than you. Which includes most of the dead people on the planet.
12-11-2017 16:58
litesong
★★★★☆
(1861)
Wake wrote:
litesong wrote:
Wake wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: If you scream for mommy...
Either, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" grew up without a mommy to scream at or she wouldn't let it scream at her. Which ever its history, the brokenness of "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" is completed by its choices to threaten.
.... cry mommy....
The psychological breakage to "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" explains its ability to threaten.... & the rest of its name. However, it has no excuse.
Still crying for mommy
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" solidifies, extrapolates & locks-in to its "mommy dearest" syndrome. It has no excuse.
12-11-2017 17:07
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
litesong wrote:
Wake wrote:
litesong wrote:
Wake wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: If you scream for mommy...
Either, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" grew up without a mommy to scream at or she wouldn't let it scream at her. Which ever its history, the brokenness of "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" is completed by its choices to threaten.
.... cry mommy....
The psychological breakage to "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" explains its ability to threaten.... & the rest of its name. However, it has no excuse.
Still crying for mommy
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" solidifies, extrapolates & locks-in to its "mommy dearest" syndrome. It has no excuse.


"MOMMY I'LL GET MY ATTENTION FROM THE INTERNET IF YOU WON'T CHANGE MY DIAPER"!
12-11-2017 17:27
litesong
★★★★☆
(1861)
Wake wrote:
litesong wrote:
Wake wrote:
litesong wrote:
Wake wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: If you scream for mommy...
Either, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" grew up without a mommy to scream at or she wouldn't let it scream at her. Which ever its history, the brokenness of "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" is completed by its choices to threaten.
.... cry mommy....
The psychological breakage to "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" explains its ability to threaten.... & the rest of its name. However, it has no excuse.
Still crying for mommy
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" solidifies, extrapolates & locks-in to its "mommy dearest" syndrome. It has no excuse.
"MOMMY....!
"many time threatener wake-me-up" continues its love affair with long dead Joan Crawford.
12-11-2017 17:42
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
litesong wrote: continues its love affair with long dead Joan Crawford.


And again has made every possible attempt to highjack the discussion. To eliminate the facts that are being made public about the hoax of global warming. The mental neediness of this sick person should show you what the True Believers are really made of.
12-11-2017 17:58
litesong
★★★★☆
(1861)
"many time threatener wake-me-up" wiffs:
litesong wrote: continues its love affair with long dead Joan Crawford.
... highjack... The mental neediness...
"many time threatener wake-me-up" hijacks this entire unmonitored webcyst with its many time threats.




Join the debate Climate model projections compared to observations:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Solar Power Generator Observations3816-11-2017 15:46
GreenMan's Climate Model3025-10-2017 18:19
The Global Temperature Model4023-07-2016 08:22
Hank Samler's Model3516-02-2016 15:22
Why does greenhouse effect make Earth's surface so cool compared to what it would otherwise be?7208-01-2016 04:09
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact