It's far easier to try and hide the globull warming hoax with dreadful code than it is to give out the code, improve it's operation, document what it is doing, and produce public peer reviewed software and correct answers -- All done way before the first official pronouncement and report. If this accurate result were really desired, it would have been done years ago, as many researchers had asked for it. It's nothing but simple computer code, unless of course you are trying to fudge the results to prove a flawed conclusion.
Man caused global warming is a hoax, the "guilty man" actions and behavior of Hansen proves it is. If it really were peer reviewed data, it would be open, documented and found to produce the answers reliably. As it is, the source data seems to be mysteriously in need of fixing almost daily now. As with the hockey stick lies, the USHCN Y2K "error", and the bad siting of temperature monitoring stations -- Faking it in today's connected world is set for tough sledding.
Odd there isn't more talk of the record Antarctica ice pack isn't it. The fact that sunspot cycle 24 is so far missing in action gets no coverage. Why? It's also reaching ridiculous proportions how NHC are trying to make the hurricane season match the predictions with all of these unusual hurricanes that aren't -- Laughable, lame and just downright idiotic.
Ref: Sunspot cycle 24:
What’s the story on this cycle? I thought it (was to to begin) 14 months ago?
Is it still “late” beginning? Or actually has begun, but is not even as large as expected?
2. The earth’s magnetic field intensity is lowering significantly over the past several decades. How has THAT change affected the cosmic ray impacts/shielding/sunspot effect that (in turn) affects cloud intensity?
Or has anybody related magnetic field intensity to cosmic ray received intensity?