I'm afraid all my efforts to
match recorded observations to them only seem close to matching the very coldest 1990 predictions and I'd love to see a graph that can more clearly show me where I'm going wrong.
Not exact matches
When we do so with CMIP5 and with the three main temperature
records we fins an underlying trend for CMIP5
matching that for Fyfe et al, and for CMIP4, and a discrepancy between
observations and models far closer to that obtained by Foster and Rahmstorf than that obtained by Fyfe et al..
He also showed no understanding of how science assembles the collection of
observations and analyses, drawing on fundamental conservation laws of energy, etc. (of course, medicine does not have such laws — so maybe that is his problem), into a coherent picture of how the Earth is functioning (and how this
matches how the planets are functioning, etc.) and so develops a paradigm for Earth system behavior that incorporates theory,
observations, results of field and laboratory studies, paleoclimatic
records, and so on.
Here we construct a database of worldwide RS
observations matched with high - resolution historical climate data and find a previously unknown temporal trend in the RS
record after accounting for mean annual climate, leaf area, nitrogen deposition and changes in CO2 measurement technique.
The Sedlacek and Knutti paper is only about oceanic temperatures, not the land
record, it shows that the models do a poor job
matching observed oceanic changes over the 20th century when relying only on natural forcing, and that if the natural - only runs are scaled to have an overall trend that
matches the
observations, the models predict a more heterogeneous distribution of trends than was observed.
Conducted inventory counts at client locations
matching physical
observation with inventory accounting
records for accuracy and completion