#235 Jimmah

This is nonsense. Models are useful in this context for predicting trends, not specific temperatures on a given date.

Another straw-man. The models haven’t successfully predicted the trend for the last decade. Try again.

The models predicted a continued warming trend and that has borne out.

Maybe according to the ginned up data by Hansen. Try looking at the satellite data sometime. Both sets expose him as the fraud that he is. Or you could just look at one of the graphs you linked to, flawed as it apparently is. cru.uea.ac.uk

How you can look at the data and not see this is rather amazing.

Actually, how you can look at that chart and not notice that it agrees that global warming has leveled off and is dipping is amazing. Not to mention how it doesn’t agree with your other chart, IIRC, which showed almost no dip after 1940. Or how the warming during the 20th century is double that which is usually quoted. I think the real numbers, without fraudulent Mann/Hansen-like manipulation, would also show that peak around 1940 as being comparable to the late 90s.

But you’re amusing me by hand-waving away the lack of capacity to predict hills and valleys that dominate over and above anything that might possibly have to do with CO2, while claiming that CO2 is shown to be the problem - with this data! Not to mention how you present a graph as evidence for AGW warming, when a similar warming trend is shown on it for 1900-1940, which is back before CO2 could have been an issue. Your own chart isn’t even right, and it refutes what you’re claiming!

You would be correct to say that temperatures have flattened or dipped a little in the last 3 years since 2005, but it is ironic that you complain about trends apparent over decades or a century as insufficiently long to draw any useful conclusions from while seeking to challenge the reading of those trends with your reading of a micro-trend of perhaps 3 years - and a stunningly unimpressive micro-trend at that.

Oh, stop it with the straw-men, for crying out loud! The trend - as confirmed in your graph is parabolic for the 1999-2009 time frame, with it’s maximum somewhere near the middle. That’s a 10-year trend, not a 3 year one. What good is a model that can’t even predict a 10-year trend? That’s cause to ask yourself, “What’s wrong with this model?” - not cause to say, “Look, see? I’m right!” The models all said it would climb steadily upwards, not turn south.

I didn’t claim that temperature will continue to drop, but I would not be surprised if it did. The Pacific oscillation is past it’s peak, and the Sun (if that idea proves valid) is quieter now than it has been for decades. We might be in for quite a chill, and if we are, guys like you are going to look even more ridiculous than you already do.