• netdr

    The graphs say it all.

    I believe some beneficial AGW may have happened but CAGW is just a pipe dream.

    The long term warming is only .5 degrees per century and only interesting to a scientist.
    The climate pessimists hate it because there is no reason to believe in CAGW!

  • charliedntsrf

    your hansen graph is intentionally misleading as he presented three different models, the two which you failed to show of course being vastly more accurate: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Hansen_2005_Model.gif

    this is a fairly common, lazy, tactic among people who have stopped engaging in the world in a genuinely skeptical manner and instead seek out the confirmation bias. i’m sure i would find the same thing about your other graphs, but i’m far too busy to pick anything but low hanging fruit.

  • netdr

    Charlie

    People who don’t research the facts themselves allow themselves to be fooled.

    Look at the original Dr Hansen paper and see what it actually said, then compare it with the actual anomalies, then make up your own mind. [What a concept !]

    Skeptical science is constantly fibbing and exaggerating and distorting the truth.

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
    See Page 7.

    Actual

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt

    There were 3 scenarios [not models] This graph shows only the one with no controls on CO2 which is the closest to what actually happened.

    Scenario “B” is with some controls, which didn’t happen.

    The most accurate one scenario “C” was a control with no additional CO2, which didn’t happen either.

    Scenario “A” predicted 1.2 anomaly for 2011 and was clearly wrong.

    Scenario “B” predicted 1.0 anomaly and was clearly wrong again.
    Even scenario “C” [with no additional CO2] was clearly wrong too. It predicted .6.

    The actual anomaly was .51, which is lower than even the zero emissions scenario.

    Dr Hansen was clearly wrong !

    I hope that clears up your confusion !

    The Scenario “B” was with some controls which didn’t happen and the “A” is closest to the emissions which actually happened.

    As of 2011 the scenario “B” predicted

  • netdr

    Charlie

    I have found skeptical science to not be skeptical at all.

    It twists facts around to make the models look more accurate than they are and if you post a correction it isn’t published.

    It swallows hock line and sinker any climate pessimist pronouncement without looking at it skeptically !

    What looks like a fail debate is anything but fair. The skeptic gets his best posts blocked so I have sopped playing their crooked game !

  • Ted Rado

    I hate to sound like a broken record, but in the absence of a viable alternative to fossil fuels, it doesn’t matter whether Hansen is right or not. There is nothing we can do about AGW except move north if it is true.
    When the graphs of CO2 and warming from ice core data was first presented, the AGW thing looked convincing. Since then, it has been shown that the warming came first, and the “hockey stick” is all wrong. All that is left are the computer mdels, which are full of fudge factors and no doubt do not include every possible variable. To embark on a draconian CO2 reduction program on that basis is madness. The CAGW believers need to show us a COMPLETE program, with a viable alternative energy plan. This idea of plunging ahead and hoping for divine intervention is crazy.

  • netdr

    Ted

    So far there has been so little warming that moving 50 miles further north should do it nicely.

    How much difference does .8 ° C make in a tornado anyway ?

    Besides wind-speeds are proportional to temperature difference not absolute temperature, so you could speed them up by cooling the cooler side !

    The ignorance of climate pessimists is appalling.

  • JP

    Hansen’s projections were based on additional CO2 projections. Scenario C is based on little to no CO2 increases (based on 1988 data). Scenario C, therefore, isn’t correct either.

  • netdr

    Agreed.

    The purpose of the model was to generate $$ and it worked !

  • Ted Rado

    The hoax and fraud go on. The amount of money the DOE passes out for projects that can easily be shown to be nonsense is appalling. Dr. Chu is a Nobel Laureate physicist. His performance clearly demonstrates the differenc between science and engineering. A scientist believes almost anything is possible (true). An engineer determines what is feasible, technically and economically. HUGE difference.

  • netdr

    If you predict good things for the earth you get ignored.

    If you predict catastrophe you get a Nobel prize !

  • netdr

    I was hoping Charlie would try to prove that my analysis of Dr Hansen’s models performance was wrong.

    No such luck !

  • http://www.capitaloffice.com.au Will Nitschke

    @charliedntsrf:
    your hansen graph is intentionally misleading as he presented three different models, the two which you failed to show of course being vastly more accurate: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Hansen_2005_Model.gif
    this is a fairly common, lazy, tactic among people who have stopped engaging in the world in a genuinely skeptical manner and instead seek out the confirmation bias. i’m sure i would find the same thing about your other graphs, but i’m far too busy to pick anything but low hanging fruit.
    ===========================================

    A couple of comments: Scenario A is closest to what happened. The sceptical science graph truncates the data at the peak of the last El Nino to milk as much apparent warming as they could, which was just before 2010. If you add the extra years of missing data, the results look even more terrible and are close match to the graph shown here.

    The Hansen prediction was hopelessly wrong. And it’s hopeless to try to defend it.

  • netdr

    Will

    I agree.

    Skepticalscience is a feel good site for climate alarmists. They never let the facts get in the way.

    Whenever I have tried to post there my comments were deleted even though I was never abusive.

    When I pointed out errors in their story like what you cite above my post is deleted quickly.

  • http://www.capitaloffice.com.au Will Nitschke

    Well, it’s a faith issue, isn’t it? A better strategy is to perhaps argue that the 1988 prediction was based on an old computer model blah blah blah, has been superseded, blah blah blah, the science has advanced, blah blah blah. But when you see a poster try to argue that the 1988 prediction was “good” then something strange is happening here psychologically. This person can see something that is just not there…

  • netdr

    The ar4 models presumably should be better but instead they were worse.

    The inability of climate scientists to predict climate even 11 years in their future proves that their level of understanding is very low !Why spend tens of trillions based on it ?

    AR4 predictions .3 ° C warming between 2001 and today.

    http://tiny.cc/zwa7x

    Actual COOLING between 2001 and today.

    20001
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend
    http://tiny.cc/plt8q

    Least squares trend line; slope = -0.00610265 per year

    Don’t get hung up on positive or negative the real story is how far wrong the prediction is.

  • MikeN

    Why do you compare to Scenario A? A close reading of the emissions suggests that Scenario B is the proper comparison.

  • http://www.capitaloffice.com.au Will Nitschke

    Scenario A is correct because it most closely matches actual CO2 output during that period. The attempt to justify scenario B is that other types of greenhouse gases did not match Hansen’s original projections, i.e., methane. However, the combined contribution of the other gases is around 5-9%, so that is not large in relation to the overall projection.

    On the other hand, since the climate is currently warming below scenario C, does it really matter if Hansen’s projection was really really bad or just really bad?

  • netdr

    His scenario “B” is almost as bad wasn’t it?

    Even the “no carbon” scenario was too high.

  • http://www.capitaloffice.com.au Will Nitschke

    Yeap, it would be like doing a multiple choice test and getting *every* question wrong. ;-)

  • Victor

    Well most of his data was probably manipulated in first place
    see: http://foia2011.org/

  • http://twitter.com/CommonSenseIdea Laurie Neverman

    I really appreciate you pulling these charts together to demonstrate the hopelessly flawed the logic of the AGW fanatics. I referenced your post in “The Great Climate Change Scam” – http://www.survivalandbeyond.net/the-great-climate-change-scam-part-1/