Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

64.4% of the surface stations in the United States have an error rate of >2C, 21.5% have a error rate of >1C and 6.2% have an error rate of >5C. That leaves 7.9% with an error rate of <1C. Their science is a big fat steaming pile of dung. It's only as good as the recorded temperatures.

 

You clearly don't understand how the government works. NASA doesn't just hire generic scientists, they hire specific specialties for specific projects. Plus why would you want the government to keep employing hucksters and frauds? Nor do you seem to understand how budgets work. Clearly you are too ill informed on this matter to be taken seriously...

 

NASA, as with many scientists are not the best with words; some are illiterate geniuses. Some of the models did get past projections right, the lack of ability to predict the future definitively going forward, using “are Getting” is not an oxymoron, the contradiction has not happened yet, the contradiction is not literally there literature wise. Replace the “are Getting” with “got,” and it makes more sense. If the same model both predicted warmer and cooler there would be a contradiction, an oxymoron, such as saying the climate model predicts a cooler warming planet.

From the perspective of the models in question, they did Get Future Warming Projections Right, but it still is not an oxymoron to say they are getting, it is illiterate literacy, and the scientists only showed they are proficient in one subject yet illiterate in another.

Example: the computer (literate) programmer for the Koran software I was using on 9/11:

“I please Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala to help Afghans(Taliban) brothers, Mujaheedins and all muslims and to gave them absolutly victory againest those who attacks.”

 

The middle class is taxed very high in Europe. Solar panels are very expensive and must be replaced every 20 years. Used solar panels are hazardous waste.

 

There is no way that anyone can assume that models can predict the future based on the past especially with the absurd quality of the surface temperature data. To claim that is indeed an oxymoron.

 

Solution

 

A solar panel are typical warrantied 25 years. You're talking total nonsense. lol

 

They drop to ~ 80% of rated power output at ~ 20 years when they should be replaced.

 

do source the need to be replaced at 80%.

 

That’s funny.

 

A solar panel has two warranties: a performance and equipment guarantee. A solar panel's performance warranty will typically guarantee 90% production at 10 years and 80% at 25 years. An equipment warrantywill typically guarantee 10-12 years without failing.

 

Again. Do source the need that this needs to be replaced after 20 years.

 

80%.

 

It is not meant to prove anything. Quoting the article is meant to help you understand why the title is not an oxymoron.

 

I would love to see any sort of credible citation for that ridiculous stream of statistics.

 

CLEARLY.

 

The title is a complete oxymoron. Read it again.

 

Exactly. Plus the fact that the distribution of the measurements is so poor that the data cannot be used to verify any model which is dependent on a uniform grid of measurements. In fact it can be rationally stated that any model which matches this erroneous data manipulation is most likely wrong.

 

And there is not one single citation to back any of those statements

 

Can denialists

A) get some up to date data
B) provide citations for the rubbish
C) start to think in GLOBAL TERMS
D) ditch the whacked out conspiracy theories

 

Yeah! So would I because I have a strong suspicion it goes back nearly 20 years to Steve McIntyre who found ONE repeat ONE error in GISS data but since it affect only the USA had a negligible impact on global data

 

Citation?

 

I did. It is not.

 

What makes you think the models are, or need to be, "dependent on a uniform grid of measurements?"

 

Ask and yee shall receive.

http://www.surfacestations.org/