SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics of Energy
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Brumar89 who wrote (73925)12/30/2016 3:54:32 PM
From: Thomas A Watson1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Brumar89

   of 86355
 
I was reading a WUWT article wattsupwiththat.com In it was a link to the Pat Frank presentation. It is a talk about applying generic statistical analysis to find or calibrate the prediction accuracy of the Global Climate Models(GCM). The presentation is 42 minutes and I found I followed the math and the logic.

The simple summary is. that using 20 plus years of satellite cloud data and comparing it with what the GCM predicted as cloud cover there was a 4 MW/M2 error in the models. The supposed effect of annual increases in CO2 is 35 MW/M2.

The GCM are jokes, how stupid supposed scientists have to be to have faith or belief in them.



The following presentation by Pat Frank details some of the devastating predictive weaknesses of climate models, especially their poor statistical management of uncertainty.
"He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense." —John McCarthy


This can also be found as wattsupwiththat.com the-needle-in-the-haystack-pat-franks-devastating-expose-of-climate-model-error/

Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News