One does not need to be a scientist to understand the significance of these graphs. Whether you choose the linear trends or the 5 year averages, it is clear that the models FAIL.
What seems to be hard for the warmist “scientists” and supporters to understand is that this means that the climate change (“CO2 means warming”) “science” FAILS to be valid. No amount of rhetoric or verbal abuse can alter the evidence and reasonable conclusion this post contributes.
- Climate modeling EPIC FAIL – Spencer: the day of reckoning has arrived (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Global Warming Alarmism In Twilight (powerlineblog.com)
- A Case Study in Denial and Fanaticism (powerlineblog.com)
I was aware of this story yesterday, but I didn’t like the original plot, (see at the end of this post) since use of straight line linear trends doesn’t accurately reflect the reality of the observation data. While it is often hard to find any reality in climate models, linear trend lines mask the underlying variance. Today, Dr. Spencer has produced a graph that I feel is representative and very well worth sharing, because it does in fact convey an EPIC FAIL speaking directly to the accuracy of an ensemble of climate models. – Anthony
Dr. Roy Spencer writes:
In response to those who complained in my recent post that linear trends are not a good way to compare the models to observations (even though the modelers have claimed that it’s the long-term behavior of the models we should focus on, not individual years), here are running 5-year averages for…
View original post 273 more words