97% of climate models are completely useless. The other 3% are as accurate as a stopped clock.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Cheering Crowds
- Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Extreme Weather
- 70C At Lisbon
- Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
- Latest Climate News
- “Climate dread is everywhere”
- “The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier.’”
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Cheering Crowds
- Gordon Vigurs on Cheering Crowds
- arn on Cheering Crowds
- arn on Cheering Crowds
- arn on Cheering Crowds
- Bob G on Cheering Crowds
- GW on Cheering Crowds
- GW on Cheering Crowds
- Mac on Cheering Crowds
- Bob G on Cheering Crowds
To repeat– anyone– check out Dr. Judith Curry’s Comments to Congress at Climate Depot.
J. Currie did a nice job. I like averaging the estimates because, as we know, the more wrongs you have the righter the answer.
I’m pretty sure we can get to within ±1.0000m of the true length of the Emperor’s (may His glory live forever!) nose just by asking the commoners & averaging the results. If 97% of climate science-guys can’t get within ±10° over the next 20 years with the same methods, no-one can.
> 97% of climate scientist’s favorite color is $gr€€n$.
> 97% of historical climate data adjustments are unjustified.
> 97% of raw data is missing, locked away, or deleted.
Reblogged this on wwlee4411 and commented:
The truth comes out!
If I was a climate alarmist that top graph would be just so, so embarrassing.
The only part of the model output that comes close to the observed data are the hindcasts, expertly fitted to the real temperature data.
I agree with that comment – and I’d specifically like to see just what the real forecast for those models was in say 1985 or 1990 and not with the hindcasts fitted. I think the contrast between expectation and reality would have been even more dramatic.
I have accurately hind cast every Super Bowl and World Series. Check please!
Climatologists are in trouble. The hits just keep on coming. Even though I’m loathe to trust anything published by these guys, because they write one thing and then say we are still doomed!!
http://m.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/0116/Surprise!-Old-growth-trees-are-star-players-in-gobbling-greenhouse-gas