Uh-oh...

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
The flaws have been summarily identified...

sorry to have burst the denier bubble provided in the OP link to the infamous denier blog WTFIUWT! You're just another denier in the mix who can't manage to actually speak to the subject at hand... or attempt to counter anything I've said. Geezaz, the way it was presented on the denier blog it reads like this issue was HUUUUUUGE! :mrgreen:
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
And yet, the truther squab remains unable to not only counter their points, but remain in a position of abject failure in ever delivering a functioning model.

Funny how that relevant fact seems to upset the apple cart each and every time, eh?
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
And yet, the truther squab remains unable to not only counter their points, but remain in a position of abject failure in ever delivering a functioning model.

Funny how that relevant fact seems to upset the apple cart each and every time, eh?

why are you running away from the OP subject at hand... your ready-reach strawman and denier talking points are well worn!
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Already commented... The facts stare you in the face, yet you deny them and propose nothing but excuses and deflections.

Time for you to move along and acknowledge that AGW was a mere, fleeting fantasy
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Already commented... The facts stare you in the face, yet you deny them and propose nothing but excuses and deflections.

your "comment":
The flaws have been summarily identified... This is yesterday's news...

as I said:
the issue the smallish number of models have is that the duration of time step for calculated insolation results in mean insolation varying with longitude. Again, this issue doesn't exist within the majority of models, particularly the more profiled and utilized models.... and, again, the issue for this smallish number of models has no/minimal impact on global temperature... something the paper authors acknowledge within the paper.
of course, once the details come forward it's understood that the authors found the issue in 8 of ~30 of the models... but that even within the 8, the resulting affect "averages out" to be a non-factor. None of the more profiled CMIP5 models have the issue. More pointedly, the paper itself states the issue doesn't have any impact on global temperature estimations. The issue reflects upon localized regional scales. But hey now member "skookumchuck" since you put your motor-mouth on mega-flap, are you aware of any CMIP5 models acting as localized regional "weather models"? :mrgreen:
per norm, the denier blog reference played the issue up as if it was HUUUUUUUUGE! Somehow, the OP linked denier blog article:
- didn't bother to qualify the significant minority of models affected,

- didn't bother to qualify that the models affected weren't the more profiled/utilized models,

- didn't bother to qualify that the paper itself identified the issue had NO IMPACT on the small number of models affected global temperature calculations

- didn't bother to qualify that the issue had NO BEARING on trend results from the small number of models affected

- didn't bother to qualify the actual practical resulting impact(s) the issue had on the small number of models affected
yup, the OP was simply another in the long, long, long list of C&P wizardry put forward directly from the regular go-to denier blogs... and per norm, the thread originator didn't add word one of his own personal interpretation... and per norm we had all the usual denier suspects chime in with their completely unrelated to the subject matter nothingness commentary, some of it directly challenging me to either comment or musing about why I haven't commented - go figure! :mrgreen:
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Why are you upset?

why do you continue to follow-up real subject related posts with your simple one-liner bullshyte comments that have absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic... that provide no value to the thread... that are simply intended to disrupt? Oh, that's right... you're member petros!!!
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Why are you getting more upset?

why do you continue to follow-up real subject related posts with your simple one-liner bullshyte comments that have absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic... that provide no value to the thread... that are simply intended to disrupt? Oh, that's right... you're member petros!!!
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Why did you take me off ignore?

your posts are unrelated to the thread topic... why do you continue so? Please channel your apparent energies into attempting to actually add something of related subject matter substance/value to this thread - thanks in advance. Until you do so, other than commenting on your purposeful fluff/nothingness... your petros dance routine... I have nothing else to provide you.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
as I said:
the issue the smallish number of models have is that the duration of time step for calculated insolation results in mean insolation varying with longitude. Again, this issue doesn't exist within the majority of models, particularly the more profiled and utilized models.... and, again, the issue for this smallish number of models has no/minimal impact on global temperature... something the paper authors acknowledge within the paper.
of course, once the details come forward it's understood that the authors found the issue in 8 of ~30 of the models... but that even within the 8, the resulting affect "averages out" to be a non-factor. None of the more profiled CMIP5 models have the issue. More pointedly, the paper itself states the issue doesn't have any impact on global temperature estimations. The issue reflects upon localized regional scales. But hey now member "skookumchuck" since you put your motor-mouth on mega-flap, are you aware of any CMIP5 models acting as localized regional "weather models"? :mrgreen:
per norm, the denier blog reference played the issue up as if it was HUUUUUUUUGE! Somehow, the OP linked denier blog article:
- didn't bother to qualify the significant minority of models affected,

- didn't bother to qualify that the models affected weren't the more profiled/utilized models,

- didn't bother to qualify that the paper itself identified the issue had NO IMPACT on the small number of models affected global temperature calculations

- didn't bother to qualify that the issue had NO BEARING on trend results from the small number of models affected

- didn't bother to qualify the actual practical resulting impact(s) the issue had on the small number of models affected
yup, the OP was simply another in the long, long, long list of C&P wizardry put forward directly from the regular go-to denier blogs... and per norm, the thread originator didn't add word one of his own personal interpretation... and per norm we had all the usual denier suspects chime in with their completely unrelated to the subject matter nothingness commentary, some of it directly challenging me to either comment or musing about why I haven't commented - go figure! :mrgreen:
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
I notice that they get that way just before the advent of another failed Global Warming Conference.

Funny in the way that they always predict the conference's failure in advance kinda like the way Wiarton Willie the groundhog predicts the arrival of spring