I expect I have more degrees than you, larue.
you expect to be wrong then
it is brutally obvious you did not finish high school,
Your phys ed bachelor doesn't really count for much.
too funny
wrong again
Its clear that you couldn't have gone much further than that, you are unable to find legit sources, unable to credit your sources accurately, unable to do research, unable to understand basic concept, unable to take part in actual dialog or debate and unable to learn anything.
you think copy and paste of internet articles and claiming a consensus of opinion is science.
you do not have a clue about true scientific discovery
for Christ sakes you do not understand the importance / significance of independent verification
You post the same crap over and over again but can't understand the basics.
you repeat the same propaganda over and over despite having their flaws explained to multiple times
1) you are still being a dishonest dipshit by trying to compare surface temperature projections with measurements in the troposhpere
asked and answered
2) your satellite data is old and suspect, it stops in 2015 and you can't explain why.
satellite data is not suspect , it has been verified by independent weather balloon data sets. you blithering moron
if you want an update , arrange to fund Dr. Christy to provide an update
what is very dishonest is insisting on using surface temperature data that you know is
filled with errors
contaminated by the urban island heat effect
incomplete
has been fiddled with
you insist on using flawed data in order to maintain your false narrative and evil propaganda
that is as dishonest as it gets
now learn something from you favourite country Norway
https://www.ssb.no/natur-og-miljo/f...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf
The GCMs have various limitations. First, the effect of increasing CO2 emissions on the climate cannot be evaluated precisely on time scales that are of the order of less than or equal to 100 years. Second, there is a lack of knowledge of the uncertainty which is partly due to the choice of the subscale models and the parameterization and calibration of these, as well as insufficient data. Third, according to some evaluations, GCMs are not sufficiently reliable to distinguish between natural and man-made causes of the temperature increase in the 20th century
GCMs are typically evaluated applying the same observations used to calibrate the model parameters. In an article in Science, Voosen (2016) writes; “Indeed, whether climate scientists like to admit it or not, nearly every model has been calibrated precisely to the 20th century climate records – otherwise it would have ended up in the trash”. Unfortunately, models that match 20th century data as a result of calibration using the same 20th century data are of dubious quality for determining the causes of the 20th century temperature variability.
i.e. climate models are shite
we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability of the GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the time series of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from the GCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2.
i.e. climate models are still shite
In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2.
the climate models do not stand up to
INDEPENDANT statistical analysis, nor do they represent the atmospheric physics
