Part 2. Each of Schmidt’s criticisms were either wrong or anticipated by Koutsoyiannis. The period from 1990-2008 was the period in which IPCC modeling had occurred; the IPCC had argued that regional effects from global warming would occur; model ensembles were used by Koutsoyiannis; and since the full 100 year temperature and rainfall data was used in intra-annual and 30 year periods by Koutsoyiannis anomalies were irrelevant.

In 2008 Koutsoyiannis found that while the models had some success with the monthly data all the models were “irrelevant with reality” at the 30 year climate scale.

Koutsoyiannis’s 2010 paper “is a continuation and expansion of Koutsoyiannis 2008”. The differences are that (a) Koutsoyiannis 2008 had tested only eight points, whereas 2010 tests 55 points for each variable; (b) 2010 examines more variables in addition to mean temperature and precipitation; and (c) 2010 compares at a large scale in addition to point scale. The large, continental scale in this case is the contiguous US.

Again Koutsoyiannis 2010 found that the models did not hindcast successfully with real data from all the 55 world regions not matching what the models produced. The models were even worse in hindcasting against the real data for the US continent.

And what does this nonsense mean:

"the long-term climate trend is up"? Is it climbing a hill?

Here's a tip, anthony cox/cohenite - this is not about you, no matter how much you want it to be.

You really don't have to waste your 4-post and 350-word limits to re-invent your 'preferred wheel' here.

Just because you frequent anti-global warming blog sites (and swear/ad-hom all you like) does not mean your rants are right.

Personally, I go with the vast majority of experts in the fields of 'climate science' (including mine) - not the motly crew that make up the small contrarian residual - albeit we all wish they were right, they are not.

Historic evidence of seafarers crossing an ice free NW passage hundreds of years ago - denied.

Paleoclimatologist ice core evidence of co2 levels following temperature fluctuations by 6 - 8 hundred years - denied

Weather patterns in seeming 'disarray' due to myriad natural cyclic fluctuations - denied

I agree with NASA observation that climate change is occurring.

Gee Sarnian, now this really is confusing, I thought that I was supposed to be the denialist here!

Denied?

Where, by whom, and in what context?

Bonmot, you might clarify the incoherent post to which your referred us “I go with the vast majority of experts in the fields of 'climate science' (including mine)”

What do the words “including mine” mean? Do you hold yourself out to be an expert?

Cohenite is a lawyer, so is qualified to speak on the topic of litigation.

Another clarification you might provide is to your statement: “he seems to think I believe in catastrophic global warming caused by human activity.”

Does that mean that you do not believe in CAGW?

Break your record, for obfuscation, here bonmot, and give a straight answer, for the very first time.

Yes, in one particular area - but there are many others that make up 'climate science'. No, you are not going to get my name.

Of course Anthony Cox/cohenite can speak on (some) aspects of law - that is not in dispute.

Which part of this don't you understand:

>> Catastrophic Anthropogenic Gplobal Warming.

What you (and he) continue to fail to understand - it won't be catastrophic - that's just spindoctoring.

Sure, a globally averaged increase of 2 degrees C by 2100 will have an impact (not all bad) - but it won't be as catastrophic as the 'alarmists' on BOTH sides make out. It will be bad enough. <<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4567#118331

That has always been my view.

You on the other hand, only see and hear what you want to see and hear - your problem, not mine.