@Joe_Public2018 @gmarkul @alangnixon Your math is demonstrably wrong. And it's contradicted by observations: https://t.co/jF17CPdooQ To calculate mean TOA insolation from the solar constant: https://t.co/7Kr6OEFAAl
@gmarkul That's some word salad you have there. Here's an energy flux diagram for sea only. Can you explain CLEARLY what you're confused about in relation to the diagram? https://t.co/cZBkcRyrHs https://t.co/AmlMRL3fod
@TopAlliedAceWW1 @PendulumFlow @Greenpeace https://t.co/TVvZ5OzNXG I found the source for your image. It's a lot more complicated than Arrhenius, and the purpose of the study is mostly to tell the difference between land and ocean energy budgets. The IPCC
@PhilippeRainant @AssoClimatoReal Le lien de l'article en question : https://t.co/7WQhPCBbrh
Ergänzung, Quellen zum Nachlesen: https://t.co/ifnRZBsxD3 https://t.co/5QXvDDk44a https://t.co/PgBY1QMjKy
@abbeJ93 @fwn_science This article is the source of the graphic, so hopefully will answer your question. https://t.co/bi74fsFOb1
@sale_judy Sources for those numbers: https://t.co/FNdN8QoZb0 https://t.co/opjnNEbPGN
@Hohheli @jarmoritola @AriIhalainen @Erik_Wbrg @juhariis @Mia_Lingo @HANeuvonen @mikarantane @AriJLaaksonen @Jarska96 @janne_maijala @jlehtira @pekka_kangas @KoponenTuomas @Tutkija5 @APulkkis @TakaloJuho @CoolsensuS Ehdin jo hukata argumentin, mistä tässä
RT @Sci_or_Fic: @alexbhturnbull @schmidtim Read a paper showing how bad these models are on energy fluxes. "Estimated uncertainties are on…
@alexbhturnbull @schmidtim Read a paper showing how bad these models are on energy fluxes. "Estimated uncertainties are on the order of 10 and 5 W/m2 for most surface and TOA fluxes, respectively." On the other hand, measured total energy imbalance is ab
@alc_anthro @Treacle_A @ffffghhfd @Tim_Burgess Third link should have been https://t.co/75pPluyhyL. Also, maybe you should read rather than skim.
@JuliePi31415926 @NikolovScience @manifesto2000 @ECOWARRIORSS @DrakeTwgdadrea1 @GeoConservative @Rainmaking @OxClimateSoc @sunrisemvmt @billmckibben @RepAOC @SenSanders @DiEM_25 @ClimateDan_ @TheNEEDAct The climate models differ wildly in their estimate of
@past_is_future @curryja @theresphysics @PaulRoundy1 The climate models diverge so much on energy balance components that there is no doubt that the climate models has been curve fitted and tuned. Still, It is clear that the models with the highest sensit
@UvMeter @BradSchrag @NikolovScience @MikeNelson247 @tan123 There are many papers, it gets updated every few years. This is the latest i have, it should reference some of the priors. https://t.co/obACyCTCvA
RT @Sci_or_Fic: Just how bad are the climate models behind the ongoing revolution? Really bad: Biases (model—observations) in downward sol…
RT @Sci_or_Fic: Just how bad are the climate models behind the ongoing revolution? Really bad: Biases (model—observations) in downward sol…
RT @Sci_or_Fic: Just how bad are the climate models behind the ongoing revolution? Really bad: Biases (model—observations) in downward sol…
Just how bad are the climate models behind the ongoing revolution? Really bad: Biases (model—observations) in downward solar radiation at Earth’s surface: -15 to 23 W/m2 (Compare that to Global imbalance: 0,6 W/m2) They are tuned to fit the imbalance
@SapientHetero It seems that there is no limit for how wrong a model can be. IPCC didn´t seem to falsify any. Maximum difference in Surface Solar Absorption between the CMIP5 models was 154 - 121 = 33 W/m2 Compare that with 0,6 W/m2 in estimated global e
RT @Sci_or_Fic: @WEschenbach @hausfath The difference in energy balance components between the models is also a peculiar thing. https://t.…
@WEschenbach @hausfath The difference in energy balance components between the models is also a peculiar thing. https://t.co/R0AYZTk4hF
@ScottAdamsSays The differences in energy balance components between the models are 10-fold the observed energy imbalance of about 0.6 W/m2. This demonstrates that the climate models must have been tuned to match observations I would not rely on wildly di
@GillesnFio @PremierScottMoe There is energy/heat coming from the Earth's core. Original paper is here: https://t.co/wJnzcDYJLF
@SturmLLiouville @richardabetts @MaximeBernier @nature I also know that: - Models are needed to estimate global effects - These models are parameterised, tuned - not only pure physics -The range in energy flux components between CMIP5 models is 10-fold the
RT @Lomas_Alejandro: La cruda realidad sobre los modelos climáticos https://t.co/Xk2S3BPFRD
RT @Lomas_Alejandro: La cruda realidad sobre los modelos climáticos https://t.co/Xk2S3BPFRD
RT @Lomas_Alejandro: La cruda realidad sobre los modelos climáticos https://t.co/Xk2S3BPFRD
RT @Lomas_Alejandro: La cruda realidad sobre los modelos climáticos https://t.co/Xk2S3BPFRD
RT @Lomas_Alejandro: La cruda realidad sobre los modelos climáticos https://t.co/Xk2S3BPFRD
RT @Lomas_Alejandro: La cruda realidad sobre los modelos climáticos https://t.co/Xk2S3BPFRD
La cruda realidad sobre los modelos climáticos
@ClimateOfGavin O wise climate scientist, please explain this: Table 2: Simulated energy balance components averaged over land, oceans and the entire globe from 43 CMIP5/IPCC AR5 models: Models are all over the place, 10 fold the observed energy imbalanc
@stevenmosher @brandonrgates @ClimateOfGavin @icarus62 @curryja @OtagoGrad In terms of energy flux, the models are all over the place. https://t.co/yMOybVhPTL
@stevenmosher @brandonrgates @ClimateOfGavin @icarus62 @curryja @OtagoGrad See table 2 "Simulated energy balance components averaged over land, oceans and the entire globe from 43 CMIP5/IPCC AR5 models …» are all over the place - 10 fold the observed energ
@CColose @EthonRaptor The problem is that the range in energy fluxes, 10 fold the measured global energy accumulation of about 0.6 W/m2, demonstrate that climate models are tuned. And that most of them, if not all, may seem right for wrong reasons. See Wi
@Rclimatologists "Table 2: Simulated energy balance components averaged over land, oceans and the globe from 43 CMIP5/IPCC AR5 models ...» are all over the place - 10 fold the observed imbalance of 0,6 W/m2 If models seem right-it is for the wrong reasons
@HeidiCullen If they seem right - it is for the wrong reasons. "Table 2: Simulated energy balance components averaged over land, oceans and the entire globe from 43 CMIP5/IPCC AR5 models ..» are all over the place - 10 fold the observed energy imbalance o
@DoskonaleSzare @curryja @ClimateOfGavin @el_nino_waves @SarahEMyhre One example why tuning can be a bad thing is demonstrated by the huge ranges in energy fluxes between models. Those ranges demonstrate that models can be tuned to seem right for the wrong
@EcoSenseNow @BvvBvx @JpiersM @RogTallbloke Considering that: «Table 2 Simulated energy balance components averaged over land, oceans and the entire globe from 43 CMIP5/IPCC AR5 models …» are all over the place - it is remarkable that they hit an energy im
CD. The energy balance over land and oceans: an assessment based on direct observations and CMIP5 climate models http://t.co/CzbdaqdFxX
CD. The energy balance over land and oceans: an assessment based on direct observations and CMIP5 climate models http://t.co/CzbdaqdFxX
CD. The energy balance over land and oceans: an assessment based on direct observations and CMIP5 climate models http://t.co/CzbdaqdFxX