It appears to be you infatuated (a bit unhealthy at that) with Hansen as if his serendipitous "prediction" was anything more than akin to going to the carnival to have your weight guessed.
It was warming up to 1988, a trend was established. He extrapolated it. Big deal. Strange how when HadCRUT3 data is laid over his prophecy graph it doesn't look so good.
What is the supposed source of this supposed HadCRUT3 data? Looking at the Met Office Hadley Centre HadCRUT3
web page, it looks like they have a whole-world data set. What did you do, pick the one site that was low enough to suit you out of all the data shown on that temperature anomaly map so you could claim that HadCRUT3 says Hansen is wrong? Or did you cherry-pick from various locations whatever was convenient to the graph you wanted to draw?
No, the gases weren't correct either.
There aren't any gases in that graph, David. You're confusing last night's acid trip with reality again.
Then again, Hansen, the same one doing the predicting is also the gatekeeper of temperature data.
Honestly, that's gotta be some pretty good acid. Either you're asserting that Hansen, who works for NASA, which in case you missed it is a US institution, has control over data collected by the Meteorology Office's Hadley Centre, which in case you missed it is a UK institution, not a US one, or you're asserting that HadCRUT3 isn't temperature data, despite having put what you claim is data from it on a temperature graph. Now, I don't know about you, but it seems to me you have a wee little bit of a conflict there somewhere or other.
The error in Hansen's U.S. temp data has somehow mysteriously returned with no explanation; Hansen wanted 1998 higher than 1934, so he just changed it back.
What is it that makes you imagine that someone can just do things like that without other scientists noticing it? Do you seriously think that you can publish a paper that has a particular, detailed claim in it, and then publish another one next year that supposedly uses the same data in it, and the data's different, and NO ONE WILL NOTICE? I mean, come on.
Maybe the tooth fairy changed it.
AUP stated UHI has been accounted for in IPCC. It has not. No physical studies were done by Jones at Hadley; it was all based on untested assumptions crap shooting. Below is perhaps one of the most comprehensive studies conducted on UHI effects.
http://www.geography.uc.edu/~kenhinke/uhi/Hinkel&Nelson_JGR-A_2007.pdf
Your "most comprehensive [study]" covers ONE CITY.
What gives you any confidence in the current surface station network when a town of 4500 can have such an effect on temperature?
What gives you any confidence you can question it on the basis of a "most comprehensive [study]" of ONE CITY? I mean, come on now. This is Ernie telling Hagar, "That waitress is flat. This beer is flat. My wallet is flat. The world HAS to be flat!!!"
I expect AUP will be along shortly with an IPCC reference instead of something from the forums.
Nowhere in Hansen's 1988 utterances did he mention in any quantitative way, solar, clouds, water vapor, UHI, precipitation or any other of the many mechanisms. No, it's only CO2 that's important.
Nope, he only mentioned temperature- and got it right. You're sure having a heck of a time keeping the subject of the conversation in mind.
As I've tried to convey on several occasions, climate models are about tuning and parameterization. For some reason, the AGW gang here seem to think climate models are "validated". Nothing can be further from the truth. Monkeys on keyboards is a good analogy on climate model predictions.
Yeah, monkeys on keyboards that make a correct prediction. That must be pretty difficult to swallow; must really burn. I can tell because you keep trying to spit it out.
Why?
How many more do you want? 10, 20, 30?
All of 'em. Bring it. You got nothin'.
You're basing all your statements about climate models on assumptions they are "reliable" and the AGW scripted responses. We have already presented several examples illustrating climate model folly. The so-called "evaluations" of them are done by the modelers themselves.
No, see, there's this problem that you might not have noticed down there in the basement. It's called the "real world." The models, you see, they have to work in it. They always did. We have data for how things were, you see, and those models have to take how things were a long time ago and duplicate how things turned out now. Once they can do that, then what these guys do is keep running them
past now and see what they say is going to happen. You see, that is and always was the entire point. This is what they were trying to accomplish, the entire time: make a model that can predict what's going to happen to the climate. They weren't
looking for global warming. The whole global warming thing, that's a side-track to these guys. The model is the
entire point.
But you see, there's this problem. Several of them made these models, and they all kept getting the same answer: global warming. And when they started to model what would happen then, some pretty gnarly stuff came out. You've heard the whole bit: melting ice sheets, rising oceans, irreversible changes in various major climate systems, like the thermohaline cycle that drives the Gulf Stream, the ENSO, the PDO, and so forth. And when they thought about what that might mean in human terms, they got scared, and figured they'd better tell the rest of us. So they did.
But people like you, when they hear something they're scared of, what they do, you see, is they deny it and hope it goes away. Only, you see, some of us don't think that's the greatest idea evar, you know? We think, hey, maybe these guys are right, and if they are, what do we do then? And it's not like they just came up with this yesterday, either. They've been saying the same thing for 20 years. And now, you see, we're starting to see the first things they predicted 20 years ago. The ice sheets are melting. And that's REALLY scary. And people who come up out of their basements, or don't live in them in the first place, see, they don't believe all the horsepucky you guys who want to deny it and hope it goes away have been spouting for 20 years any more. Because they look at the newspaper, and the newspaper says you're lying. Now, you might not believe that, because you've been down in that basement so long. Problem is, it doesn't matter what you believe any more. That "real world" thingie I talked about at first? Well, that's the problem, you see.
AGW is now caught with it's pants down. Met O is trying to salvage it somehow:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/317/5839/796
Met O January 2007, not from a newspaper CD. Directly from their website:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070104.html
And a special note:
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
You know what that means don't you? Where has all the global warming gone?
[/quote]No, see, you have to read the newspapers. AGW just melted the North Pole. This year. And if you don't read newspapers, you might have missed that. Nobody else did, though. So what you're doing, you're fighting City Hall. You're telling the tide to stop. Not gonna happen, you with me?
My recommendation? Come up out of the basement into the real world and see what's going on.
?
