[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

Yawn.

And then, of course, there's the fact the the modeling developed over time by climate hysterics don't match up with observed temps. In fact, the models predict twice as much warming as actually observed.

One can read about the author of this chart here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy. He's described as a faculty member at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, who has long worked with another faculty member, Roy Spencer.

The chart was from a paper published in the journal 'Remote Sensing.' You can read about the journal here. Interestingly, the journal's original editor resigned in 2011, over the Journals publication of a controversial paper by Roy Spencer.

The journal is publish by an organization called MDPI. Your can read about MDPI here. The publisher has drawn heavy criticism for accepting for publication articles the critics call pseudoscience.

You can read about Roy Spencer here. This article states that:

Spencer is a signatory to "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming", which states that "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.

The Spencer article cited about includes this criticism of a 2011 paper of Spencer's:

Andrew Dessler later published a paper opposing the claims of Spencer and Braswell (2011) in Geophysical Research Letters.[25] He stated, among other things:

First, [they] analyzed 14 models, but they plotted only six models and the particular observational data set that provided maximum support for their hypothesis. Plotting all of the models and all of the data provide a much different conclusion.

I'd be interested to know if the data set that forms the basis of Christy's chart, reproduced above, has similar problems. I wonder how '102' predictions were selected, and how the red line that somehow supposedly represents their collective output was derived. It occurs to me that the author might have exercised a lot of discretion in deciding what constituted an 'includable study' in his set of 102, with the result being driven by the choosing. At the very least, one must suspect the line averages apples, oranges, eggplants, and wild hickory nuts.

BTW, why is all the 'observation' data shown as straight lines? The actual data would plot as a scattering of points. Regression analysis can plot a straight line through such points, but now you're not charting obeservations, you're charting your own analysis. It should at least be descriptively called out as such on the chart.