hey clown troll... read the last paragraph... This is the entire section 8.6.4 this is from the IPCC itself. 100% of climatologists now agree... there is no model which shows man made CO2 to be forcing temps. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-4.html Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis Contents88.68.6.4 8.6.4 How to Assess Our Relative Confidence in Feedbacks Simulated by Different Models? <> Assessments of our relative confidence in climate projections from different models should ideally be based on a comprehensive set of observational tests that would allow us to quantify model errors in simulating a wide variety of climate statistics, including simulations of the mean climate and variability and of particular climate processes. The collection of measures that quantify how well a model performs in an ensemble of tests of this kind are referred to as âclimate metricsâ. To have the ability to constrain future climate projections, they would ideally have strong connections with one or several aspects of climate change: climate sensitivity, large-scale patterns of climate change (inter-hemispheric symmetry, polar amplification, vertical patterns of temperature change, land-sea contrasts), regional patterns or transient aspects of climate change. For example, to assess confidence in model projections of the Australian climate, the metrics would need to include some measures of the quality of ENSO simulation because the Australian climate depends much on this variability (see Section 11. 7). To better assess confidence in the different model estimates of climate sensitivity, two kinds of observational tests are available: tests related to the global climate response associated with specified external forcings (discussed in Chapters 6, 9 and 10; Box 10.2) and tests focused on the simulation of key feedback processes. Based on the understanding of both the physical processes that control key climate feedbacks (see Section 8.6.3), and also the origin of inter-model differences in the simulation of feedbacks (see Section 8.6.2), the following climate characteristics appear to be particularly important: (i) for the water vapour and lapse rate feedbacks, the response of upper-tropospheric RH and lapse rate to interannual or decadal changes in climate; (ii) for cloud feedbacks, the response of boundary-layer clouds and anvil clouds to a change in surface or atmospheric conditions and the change in cloud radiative properties associated with a change in extratropical synoptic weather systems; (iii) for snow albedo feedbacks, the relationship between surface air temperature and snow melt over northern land areas during spring and (iv) for sea ice feedbacks, the simulation of sea ice thickness. A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed since the TAR (see Section 8.6.3), but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections. Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.
nah , cause I have empathy for crazy people. You on the other hand, not so much as it's self induced.
That's your answer for everyone who is smarter than you. But then it doesn't take much to out wit a moron like yourself. Fool.
No, you are not smarter than me or even most people, you are simply nuts. I sometimes wonder if you are being paid to create more page views or something and you don't believe in what you post at all. Because if you really do believe the shit you say you are psychotic. Or reeeaaaallllyy stupid. And I don't think you are that stupid. Although you could be. Maybe a little of both.
You are just a little moron futurecunt. You're just a hardcore liberal who doesn't know he is being led around by the nose. You don't know anything about the climate because you have no critical thinking abilities. That's why you don't work in a scientific field and have to install air conditioners for a living. You have failed at life and you fail at understanding science. I actually feel sorry for you because your stupidity has turned you into a failure. It must be very humbling to be so stupid.
But I'm not the moron science denier. You are. My thoughts are the same as virtually the entire world's science community. Yours are aligned with closed minded, ideologically deranged, right-wing partisan, low IQ idiots.
Of course you are. And everyone here knows it. You keep repeating your fabled science failure. We all know that CO2 does NOT lead warming. We also know that there hasn't been any warming for the last 17 years in spite of an increase in natural CO2 levels. And, your 97% of climatologists figure is inherently wrong. It was a cherry picked group of 79 scientists. Even then the actual number was 75%. Repeating your misleading information and lies doesn't make it true. It only makes you a habitual liar, a fool, an idiot or all three.