On Sep 15, 1:45 am, "ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans"
wrote:
wrote

- but as NOT predicted, rainfall has increased 2 to 7 times as much
as the models- more rain implies more clouds- a negative feedback.

Ahahahahahah.. This is not (Rain+observed)/(Rain+predicted) it is
observed/predicted.

So if Rain = 1 and observed = .00000000001 and predicted = .000000000001
then

(Rain+observed)/(Rain+predicted) = 1

But observed/predicted = 10

Ahahahahahaha... Dividing the differences to make them look dramatically
larger than they are.

First of all , your math is weak. The increase was about 7%, so
using your "reasoning"
the error was between 1.07/1.01 = 1.059 and 1.07/1.03= 1.039, an
error of 3.9% to 5.9%, far larger than your estimated 0.00000000001.
Using the same "reasoning", global temperatures averaged 287 around
1900, and now average 287.7, so the " mesurement error" is only
287.7/287= 0.24%, more than a factor of 10 smaller than the error you
write off- A. McIntire

(childish ad hominem attack deleted)