But that is precisely why
none of these models predicted the housing - price crash.
None of these models predicts that the equator of the Sun should rotate faster than the poles.
Spin as the Team may, the fact is that
none of the models predicted a plateau, or even the possibility of a plateau.
Not exact matches
When researchers ran the numbers for the Corn Belt, the global
models fell short
of reality: They
predicted both temperature and humidity to increase slightly, and rainfall to increase by up to 4 % —
none of which matches the observed changes.
It is significant, however, that
none of the
model calculations
predicts negligible warming.
No climate
model predicted the last seven years
of cooling and
none can explain it.
Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said, «
None of this has been
predicted by numerical
models, and therefore all projections
of the contribution
of Greenland to sea level [rise] are way below reality.»
And that raises the critical question
of why
none of the GW
models predicted, or anticipated this sudden cooling.
None of the «consensus» computer
models predicted that.»
There are theories and
models (and as a theorist, I just love to tell stories) but there aren't any particularly successful theories or
models and there is a lot
of competition between the stories (
none of which agree with or
predict the empirical data particularly well, at best agreeing with some gross features but not others).
When researchers ran the numbers for the Corn Belt, the global
models fell short
of reality: They
predicted both temperature and humidity to increase slightly, and rainfall to increase by up to 4 % —
none of which matches the observed changes.
None of the mid-Nineties
models predicted a two - decade pause, and no scientist can do more than speculate on the reason for it.
Dr Christy's report to the US Senate shows that
none of the climate
models were able to
predict the present «pause».
Or, at least,
none of the consensus climate
models predicted this cooling, which is why, to avoid looking completely ridiculous, AGW believers now refer to «climate change» rather than «global warming.»
None of today's trends even approach the IPCC's
predicted trend range
of 2 to 6 degrees (C) per century that its «experts» and climate
models told us long ago were being experienced (unfortunately, they mistook the natural climate's super El Niño's huge impact during 1997/98 as confirmation
of CO2 - induced warming).
Even if you quibble about the meaning
of the term «significant», the fact that
none of the datasets have risen to the levels
predicted by past climate
models — even in their «best case scenarios» for CO2 emissions — still blows the hypothesis out
of the water.
Not only does this contradict all the doomladen climate
models cited in the IPCC's various reports —
none of them
predicted the so - called «Pause» — but it also means that -LSB-...]
Not only does this contradict all the doomladen climate
models cited in the IPCC's various reports —
none of them
predicted the so - called «Pause» — but it also means that not one
of the kids in school being fed climate propaganda by their on - message teachers has ever personally lived during a time
of global warming.
If the only evidence we have for AGW are the
model projections and
none of them
predicted what is actually happening, how can anyone
predict a resumption in warming in 10, 20 or 30 years.
The fact is that
none of the
models can accurately
predict anything.
However,
none of the four exercise
models in the previous survey could
predict the presence
of higher levels
of depressive symptoms.
As controls in regression
models predicting abuse,
none of these factors individually explained the difference in partner abuse between cohabitors and daters.