Even with all their data tampering, NASA, NOAA and the IPCC can’t get temperatures up to Hansen’s zero emissions Scenario C
Red shows AR5 temperature overlaid on Hansen’s 1988 forecasts.
And after all these failures, they keep increasing their confidence assertions.
This whole global warming scam has sunk to such pathetic levels, it defies comprehension.
 | gelcarrion0t on Australia Permanent Drought Up… |
| gelcarrion0t on “New computer modeling… |
 | Morgan Wright on Climate Destroying Shrimp |
 | Christopher Simpson on 1896 : Japan Hit By Earthquake… |
 | energywise on What’s At Stake? |
 | Robert Cherba on Too Hot To Live |
| gelcarrion0t on Too Hot To Live |
 | Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
| Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
| Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
even funnier, look what they did with the fake gray cone of death….
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc_ar5_draft_fig1-4_with.png
Before I unintentionally say something stupid about the figure you link to, let me first make sure that I understand it. It appears to be a figure showing multiple models predictions of likely warming — some models with large amounts, some with smaller amounts, but nonetheless, multiple models which have each attempted to give their best prediction of what will happen. To that they added arbitrary gray lines that pretend to be one (or two?) sigma deviations from their model out put. Am I right so far? And then, since observations fall within the grey zone attached to the very lowest of all the models they show, they claim to have predicted sucessfully the current observations?
Is it really that stupid? Am I missing something, something subtle that I really ought to see? If it is really that stupid, then I claim that I can predict the next Lotto winning numbers. All I have to do is to make multiple predictions, add on some arbitrary amount of deviation, and then — no matter what numbers are picked for the winning Lotto — I will be able to point to one of the predictions (with its associated “error”) and say, “I DID IT! I PREDICTED THE WINNER!!”
Seriously, am I misunderstanding this completely?
Pretty much. Except that should a cyclical cooling trend (like the 60s-70s) occur, the temperature observations will fall out of their “fudge-cone”. Then the IPCC will be reduced to explaining that the missing heat is hiding on the far side of the moon.
And Firefighters have a green problem.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/02/firefighters-alarmed-by-dangers-posed-by-rooftop-solar-panels/?intcmp=latestnews
“We may very well not be able to save buildings that have alternative energy,” New Jersey’s Acting Fire Marshall William Kramer told The Star-Ledger.
The science editor of the BoingBoing blog, a journalism/anthropology major, is today pushing a popular psychology version of skepticism:
http://boingboing.net/2013/10/02/climate-debate-is-it-about-s.html
“Why do we spend so much time debating science? The science is solid, and its conclusions haven’t changed appreciably in more than a decade. It’s the values debate that shapes what the policy should actually be. It’s the values debate that we don’t have a good grasp on. Even within groups of people who supposedly agree on what we should do about climate change, our values — and our solutions — can be wildly different”
Blah blah blah, smoke screening.
Heh. Winter storm watch for Larimer and Boulder counties…
http://alerts.weather.gov/cap/wwacapget.php?x=CO124F1D3AA984.WinterStormWatch.124F1D66E940CO.BOUWSWBOU.0ce0d372234f0cb0a77f4ac562c4b51d
We are having the snowiest year on record from Boulder to Fort Collins
You still bashing Hanson over something you say he said back in 1988? This sounds personal. I suspect what you say he said/says is not at all what he would say he said or is saying. Science discussion evolves. Let it evolve.
Hansen recently claimed he still stands by his 1988 “predictions”.
So, given that, let the ridicule continue.
“Science discussion evolves. Let it evolve.”
Sure! Great idea! Consider this though… Suppose you had been saying “science discussion evolves” for some years, and every time you said it you were shouted down with “The science is SETTLED! It is just simple high-school physics! The science is settled!” Would you consider such a response to be good science, bad science, or no science at all?
Hansen was a government paid researcher who let his political beliefs get in the way of correctly performing his job.
According to CBS, the atmospheric temperature could have risen by 212 degrees if the heat hadn’t gone into the oceans!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57605102/oyster-is-a-canary-in-a-coal-mine-as-oceans-warm/
Yes, if the heat had all gone into the atmosphere, and none of it had been lost for a half century. I wonder how much the atmosphere would heat up if all the fossil fuels ever burned were suddenly to release their heat at one moment? I wonder how much the oceans would rise if all the ground water ever pumped were released at once?
The sad thing is that the warmists really do not even understand why such hypotheticals have no bearing on the actual world-as-it-is.
And the problem is simple. Every time people debate, argue, and devote space and energy to the utter and complete nonsense of AGW (speaking as a geologist) another victory is scored and they laugh at us. Because that energy could have been spent pointing out the treachery of their illegal wars and how they kill people every day with their policies and warmongering.