Re: predictions of Global Warming....The models are wrong (but only by 400%)

JoNova ^ | August 11th, 2010 | Joanne

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

fyi

[steelyourfaith]

Thanx !

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the Comments to the article at Jonova:

**********************************************************

sunsettommy:
August 11th, 2010 at 3:42 pm

The observations don’t match the predictions

And when they are off by HUNDREDS of percent.They are not even close!

The models are clearly shown to be invalidated and therefore should be discarded.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

You will notice I didn't use the title of the paper....but here is an explicit link to the Pdf:

Panel and Multivariate Methods for Tests of Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Series

[surfer]

and 1000’s of observation locations were purposely set up to maximize temperature. Add to the fact that they discounted almost 2/3rds of the observation locations because the temps were too cold...

THE ENTIRE THING IS A SCAM!!!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Pages 12 and 13 have some charts.....

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

But the ends justified the means....onward to Global Governance funding.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

It is a very technical paper...but jumping to the conclusions :

****************************EXCERPT***********************************

4 Discussion and conclusions

Econometric tools are increasingly being used for climate data sets (see, e.g., Fomby and Vogelsang 2002, Mills 2010). We present two econometric methods for trend comparisons between data sets. Both add flexibility for multivariate comparisons and provide improved treatment of complex error structures. The multivariate testing method of Vogelsang and Franses (2005) yields the more robust estimator of the covariance matrix, but requires balanced data panels. Panel regression methods can accommodate comparisons of series of unequal lengths, but software limitations typically limit treatment of within- panel autocorrelation to the AR1 case. In our example the two methods yielded similar conclusions, indicating that the AR1 approximation in the panel model was likely not overly restrictive. In general, however, for the purpose of multivariate trend comparisons in climatology, we particularly recommend that the VF05 method enter the empirical toolkit.

In our example on temperatures in the tropical troposphere, on data ending in 1999 we find the trend differences between models and observations are only marginally significant, partially confirming the view of Santer et al. (2008) against Douglass et al. (2007). The observed temperature trends themselves are statistically insignificant. Over the 1979 to 2009 interval, in the LT layer, observed trends are jointly significant and three of four data sets have individually significant trends. In the MT layer two of four data sets have individually significant trends and the trends are jointly insignificant or marginal depending on the test used. Over the interval 1979 to 2009, model-projected temperature trends are two to four times larger than observed trends in both the lower and mid-troposphere and the differences are statistically significant at the 99% level.

Our methods assume trends are linear. We found no evidence for nonlinearity on the observed data, but some on modeled data in the MT. Also, the fact that the results are sensitive to the end date suggests that they might also be sensitive to the start date. Since the satellite data are unavailable prior to 1979 we cannot extend these series earlier. Interpretation of trend comparisons should therefore make reference to the time period analysed, which, ideally, should have some intrinsic interest. In this case the 1979-2009 interval is a 31-year span during which the upward trend in surface data strongly suggests a climate-scale warming process. As noted in the studies cited in the introduction, comparing models to observations in the tropical troposphere is an important aspect of testing explanations of the origins of surface warming.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From Anthony Watts website:

Gore concedes, National Wildlife Federation calls skeptics “bastards”

************************************EXCERPT****************************************

Posted on August 10, 2010 by Anthony Watts

Gore concedes on climate this year
By Steve Milloy GreenHellBlog, August 10, 2010

Speaking about the likelihood of climate bill being passed by Congress in 2010, Al Gore told a conference call of supporters tonight that, “this battle has not been successful and is pretty much over for this year.” Gore bitterly denounced the Senate and federal government stating several times, “The U.S. Senate has failed us” and “The federal government has failed us.” Gore even seemed to blame President Obama by emphasizing that “the government as a whole has failed us… although the House did its job. [emphasis added]”

Gore urged his listeners to take the “realistic view that they had failed badly.” Gore said that “Comprehensive legislation is not likely to be debated” and that a “lame duck debate” is a “very slim possibility indeed.” (N.B. We thought, because Gore told us, that “the debate” was over.)

…

Gore blamed the skeptics for “attacking science and scientists.” “They [the skeptics] did damage and cast doubt,” Gore said.

…

In a warm-up discussion before Gore addressed the call, National Wildlife Federation chief Larry Schweiger referred to the skeptics as “enemies” and that he hoped the alarmists would “outlive the bastards.”

Read entire story: Gore concedes on climate this year at Greenhell blog

[SunkenCiv]

It’s almost as if the whole works never had any science behind it in the first place, and was just a political scam. :’) Thanks Ernest.

[TheOldLady]

It’s almost as if the whole works never had any science behind it in the first place, and was just a political scam. :’) Thanks Ernest.

Oh no! It's been disproved for good? How are they going to get our taxes up to 90% without crap and tax? Oh, the hugh manatee.

[Marine_Uncle]

The ***t they have been allowed to get away with for so long is ... well rather alarming at best. But at least we finally are seeing how poor the science really was in describing what is known as global warming.