Same averages crap again without showing which data set he is using. Here, detailed rebuttal First, Christy “misleadingly misaligned” the starting point, using a single date instead of an averaged baseline. This has the effect of exaggerating the differences. Actual peer reviewed papers (as opposed to Christy’s misbegotten chart) show that when you use a scientifically respectable climatic baseline as your starting point instead of a single year, the result tells a very different story: one of model-observation agreement. What a more honest comparison of models to observations looks like Christy then fails to include uncertainty ranges in the chart, which is ironic given how deniers love citing scientific uncertainty as a reason for not addressing climate change. By showing only the average of model results and not the spread, Christy hides the fact that temperatures are doing exactly what many model runs would expect. Similarly, by averaging together different observed temperature data sets (and not disclosing which ones he’s using in the first place), Christy hides the fact that the observational data is varied. Averaging the datasets makes it look like they're in close agreement, when in reality, satellite and weather ballon records have been drifting apart. Not to mention, Christy leaves out the actual thermometer-based record of land and ocean surface temperatures, which show more warming than the observational data in Christy’s chart. That’s the fifth issue highlighted in Nuccitelli's article: Christy’s chart only shows air temperature data at 25,000 feet. It doesn't take a scientist to know that temperatures on Mount Everest, which peaks at 29,029 feet, are much colder than those at sea-level. And when it comes to measuring global climate change, you need to account for changes in temperature across the entire system, and not just those in the atmosphere. It so happens that the ocean stores 93 percent of heat added due to global warming! All these problems with the chart should make it obvious why Christy’s never been able to publish it in peer-reviewed literature. To do that, he’d have to justify why he cherry-picked model runs and observation records, why he’s neglected to show uncertainty ranges, why he chose to use a single year instead of a baseline average, and why he thinks temperatures where life exists are less important for climate change concerns than temperatures at 25,000 feet. Since he can’t do that, he’s left with presenting it in places where the facts don’t seem to matter much. Which, apparently, is Congress. https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016...ong-With-This-Picture-Christy-s-Chart-Version
https://www.vencoreweather.com/blog...and-near-record-accumulations-of-snow-and-ice Overview While we were celebrating our Independence Day on July 4th, Summit Station in Greenland may have experienced the coldest July temperature ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere at -33°C (-27.4°F). Much of Greenland has been colder-than-normal for the year so far and has had record or near record levels of accumulated snow and ice since the fall of last year. The first week of this month was especially brutal in Greenland resulting in the record low July temperature and it also contributed to an uptick in snow and ice extent - despite the fact that it is now well into their summer season. The record low temperature of -33°C (-27.4°F) on July 4th was more typical of the daily maximum temperature expected during the winter month of January. The accumulated snow and ice on Greenland has actually run at record or near record levels throughout this year and this well above normal trend began during the fall season of 2016.
you don't even comprehend what you are looking at. that grey box... the bottom of is the 2.5% line. When the models fall below that line even agw nutter scientists admit the models are failing. you can see the modes are failing. whatever temperature data sets you use which are supposed to be worldwide... there is not significant variation.... you agw nutter arguments are bullshit which is why they don't do the comparisons. here are some of the counters to your daily kos crap... and I note there are people stating the uncertainties in your models plot seem to overstated. http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/0...-or-spot-on-consistent-with-observed-warming/
http://www.news.com.au/technology/e...t/news-story/50906eac539b4fa9303ae95302b7f36b Record breaking cold weather hits Australia’s south east The mercury in the NSW town, close to the Murray River, sank to -5.6C early on Sunday morning — that’s the coldest it’s been for 110 years.
Google translated. http://g1.globo.com/minas-gerais/no...ra-recorde-de-frio-desde-1975-diz-inmet.ghtml At 6.1 ° C, Belo Horizonte has a lower temperature since the 1975 record, says Inmet According to the institute, the minimum was recorded in a station in the Center-South Region between 6am and 7am, with a thermal sensation of -9 ° C.
It's not a box, it's the spread and the models would be 'failing' based on Christy's chart, why couldn't he get that to publish in a peer reviewed journal?