I think your are all Butthurt because I've shown just how badly the Climate Models have failed to accurately predict Global Temperature and it's getting worse! According to John Christy's (University of Alabama - Huntsville) presentation given to the US Congress, Not only are the models bad, they don't even agree the basic mechanisms that are driving climate! His testimony to congress is presented here along with a chart of the failed model runs: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY18/20131211/101589/HHRG-113-SY18-Wstate-ChristyJ-20131211.pdf
I urge people to read this testimony and to remember that it was given before Congress: an entity to whom Lying or BS'ing is a CRIMINAL OFFENSE! But, whether you elect to read it or not, I think you can rest assured that Congress is getting the true story on AGW and Climate Change and, as a result, won't pass any stupid laws on the basis on the flawed Science of Climate Modeling.
Also, Americans remain a practical people in some respects and have properly rated their concern about "Global Warming" pretty far down the list....well below "Air Pollution", Drinking-water Pollution and Toxic Waste (http://www.gallup.com/poll/168236/americans-show-low-levels-concern-global-warming.aspx) So....it doesn't look like Americans are going to be fooled by the AGW Hysterics.
Again, poppycock, Jules Galen. As expected you can't answer for any of the concoctions you borrow via Google, so you have turn to a narcissistic "
I've shown just how badly the Climate Models have failed to accurately predict Global Temperature and it's getting worse!". Clearly defeated in your purpose, you declare victory. So reality is not your strength, isn't it?
Of course, new cow manure replaces what it failed before. Your new link, increasingly larger in order to extend the time consumed by us reading low quality resources, includes a new figure from it, which r-j was nice enough to link, because he has a knack detecting this kind of things
In that image, supposedly models are compared with real sets of data. Well, to start with, a giant label says 102 rcp4.5 model runs in 24 groups. Do you know what rcp4.5 is, little grasshopper? A supposed scenario for future estimations, not what indeed happened in that period. To use modern models and run them from some day in 1977 on, you need a reasonable set of initial conditions for that date matching what each specific model needs, and the ability to provide an emission path. If you study the past you use the factual emission path, not a scenario to analyse the future. This at least show an inability from this person and his aids to deal with the models directly.
On the other hand, Jules Galen, I congratulate you for having a time machine and having here discussion from 1988 or 1993. This mid tropospheric temperatures (500hpa level, typically) are typically between 0°C and -50°C. Let say in the tropical regions are -5°C as an average. Slightly different content of water vapour in different layers and inaccuracies to deal with cold air incursions in each hemispherical winter cause differences of 1°C that are really of little importance, when a tenth of it would be important at the surface. This is a factor modelling didn't place their strongest attention because the effect is negligible to the model itself and accent must be placed elsewhere. If you have models with a north pole island or a resolution of 15' of arc in 32 levels, it really doesn't matter if you get 0°C at 4500m or at 4800m up the surface and that is basically the exploit your Alabamian chap is making.
You'll be glad to know that the most reliable models show in that graphic the largest apparent "error". Interesting to know how those models can give a jump of 1.2°C for that level in just 15 years when they give less than 2°C on the surface by the end of this century. I have to say, you need at least 140 Tby or memory just to hold state while running those models, if you use the actual open source. That is what tells me this chap took random runs from different sources for a worse than reality scenario -but not much worse because it'd show-, and make all pass by 0 in 1979, so he can have a nice Frankenstein of a graphic. For instance, these reliable models I mentioned reasonably follow the real values until 1993 or 1995, when they become a bit crazy and go up rapidly. This suggests the chap got some runs from early stages of those models during those years and implanted them in the figure, hence the Frankenstein. One of those models being referred as a cmip3 and not 5, and the other one lacking a final M confirm the age of the runs and the vintage versions of the model used -I could run those versions in my old notebook easily today, no Tby needed-. On the contrary, an Australian model that is weaker to deal with this problem shows relative low values because the version used make me think of a 2005 run in an older version.
Don't even ask for the 5-year averages.
So, induced inference, pull a lot of thing together in a fashion that induce the wished conclusion. A lie it is, but it wouldn't lead to a charge of perjury even when said under oath in a trial. So much for your trustworthy scientist and congress.
!
!
.
