Red dot shows GISS December. Temperatures have fallen well below even Scenario C.
“Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes a reduced linear linear growth of trace gases, and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.”
I’ll talk for global warming believers here:
—
So what if some predictions of global warming scientists are wrong? The science is still solid. Global warming is happening and man is surely the cause. And besides, you are misunderstanding Hansen. He meant something else. You skeptics are cruel to him. He is a good man and loves his grandchildren. He cares about the world. How dare you question someone that has devoted his life to the vital cause of saving the world! I bet some of you think the earth is flat. You probably don’t care about pollution. This is just a blog. Nothing important can happen in a blog. It’s just a soap box for street preachers! One day you’ll see, when millions die if we don’t change anything then you’ll all be the guilty ones deserving of the severest punishment humanity can give! And your grandchildren will want to be the ones that execute the sentence! You all are heartless and mindless. Take your graphs and go to hell!
—
Sound about right?
yep LOL
good job!
took the letters right off my keyboard!
yawn
lol, perfect!
and if December temps continue to be way under those scenario for subsequent months for the next 10-15 years you will be right about Hansen’s model.
Still, according to GISS December was hotter than normal, strangely enough in all the places other than the ones that you posted about (except for Nunavut)
The oceans having been heating like crazy for the last 22 years, but they decided to suddenly get rid of all that excess heat. Next year, they will get all their heat back and go crazy with super hot temperatures.
ain’t no heat in the pipe line….
it all spun off to the poles and there’s nothing behind it
Speaking of cooling oceans, what happened to that ARGO buoy data at GISS? Can’t find it anywhere among James Hansen’s things…… huh…… Well, it’ll turn up. Hansen’s a good scientist, top in the world. He wouldn’t knowingly stop using good data just because it was showing a cooling trend in the oceans.
I’m pretty sure I missed the point of your joke (my bad) but I would like to point out that the ocean heat content has declined since late 2003.
oh wait! maybe I’m not looking deep enough……………………..LOL
Global warming warmcold water is more dense than normal water, so it sinks to the bottom of the ocean.
latitude says:
January 16, 2011 at 3:17 am
oh wait! maybe I’m not looking deep enough
Don’t look too deep into it, you might get some on you. Ewwww!
LOL! This takes me back to my University days……..
Hansen’s own GISTEMP data has been tracking “Scenario C” almost perfectly for the last 20 years, while CO2 emissions proceed along the lines of “Scenario A.”
In other words, his own data is disproving his own projection. Priceless!
Looks like your “Emperor” has no clothes, Mr. Duncan. (:-
Yes the emperor does have clothes. You just can’t see them. You’re a denier.
;O)
Anything is possible,
So who is my emperor? What is it that I believe? As yet no one here has been willing to take up the challenge, just more assumption without any basis in reality.
Just because Steve says things here that are obviously and undeniably wrong does not mean anything other than I believe that he is obviously wrong sometimes.
Anything is possible says:
January 16, 2011 at 3:18 am
Looks like your “Emperor” has no clothes, Mr. Duncan. (:-
No, no, Anything. Tony says predictions from global warming scientists are not wrong. Those scientists, he says, cannot be pinned down to any number in their prediction because of margins of error. So you see, they are always right. Some call that slop. But they would be wrong. Some would call it fudging the numbers. But, they’re are wrong too. Global warming science is always right. And it will always be right.
It’s like to people who continue to insist the world is 6000 to 10,000 years old. They can always find a way to explain away any piece of evidence that shows they are wrong.
No black and white. The world is gray. That’s where global warming exists, in the gray. And the gray area grows as the years pass. Though people have been catching on to it.
James Hansen, the scientist of the gray area. That’s how he created the warmest year ever, by going to the ceiling of the gray area. He wiggled his wiggle room to the limit. So see? He’s not wrong.
And how about that heated testimony room in 1988! More of that good science Hansen is involved in. Though I haven’t ever seen Tony Duncan explain why that was ok too. It’s all good. It’s global warming science. So, it’s all good. It’s all gray.
AMINO,
there is no way I have the time to properly comment of the vast litany of imaginings, suppositions and incorrect statements in just your above post.
I find it funny that I must have challenged people at least 10-20 times to find anything in any post that I have written that substantiated their assertions about what I have said or believe and not once has anyone done so.
So Amino I have commented on the 1988 testimony quite clearly.
Are you saying that climate science is all black and white, and any prediction that has a margin of error is worthless, and if someone makes a prediction and it is wrong it completely refutes the theory that they used to support that prediction?
Using that thinking, obviously Wegeners theory of Continental drift was wrong because every physicist in the world knew that Centrifugal force was a laughable mechanism. How could anyone listen to an idiot that would suggest that
Silly me, trying to engage Amino in an actual discussion.
So funny. Again, don’t quit your day job.
Amino,
Once again a devastating response.
I do love about this site that people are constantly attributing beliefs to me and yet not once has anyone ever provided any comment I have ever made that supports it when I challenge them
I personally think that the Sun does not affect temperatures on Earth. It is coincidental that a large CO2 bubble moves in from the east every morning.
Tony Duncan says:
January 16, 2011 at 5:59 am
yet not once has anyone ever provided any comment I have ever made that supports it when I challenge them
Maybe you need glasses.
Amino,
How did you know that? I had 5 operations for a detached retina.
And please be my guest and show me one time where I have challenged someone to provide a comment that supported their imaginary assertion about what I believe, and they actually did so.
AAM:
I have read all that before when discussing this very topic. When I read about the 1988 incident Hansen became the Bumbling Fool, similar to but makes the town drunk look sober.
For those not aware GHGs are not following the proposed track shown by Hansen but exceeding it.
Heck, no global warming prediction has been happening. It’s that damned data! Keeps getting in the way of all their little computer predictions. They’d get away with it too if not for that meddling data showing they are wrong!
TonyD:
You are FOS because Hansen’s graph was proven wrong years ago. It is just the defenders of the absurd that have kept the fantasy alive.
Mike,
that is of course your opinion, and that of most other people that post on here.
I certainly would say that his predictions regarding various scenarios was not accurate. Hansen used a figure of about 4°C/doubling, which turned out to be higher than most climate scientists now consider reasonable. At the time, it was not an unreasonable possibility and he acknowledged the likelihood of a significant margin of error in that regard at the time. Thanks Mike and Steve for posting his article numerous times, or I would never have read that
Global warming scientists are never wrong. Whatever they say about doubling co2 is right.
So we should take our graphs and stick em, eh Tony?
Amino,
Uh, no.
Sure Tony,
anything you say.
Tony, the only reason some climatologists say it is higher than reasonable is because the projections have turned out to be utter nonsense. Of course, more recently, we’ve seen several reports of climatologists stating Hansens projections are low balling and that we may see 10-15 degree increases in the next century/doubling of CO2.
Now, if one was to consider the implications of my statements, (and please check for veracity, can help if needed) one realizes that in the very recent past, climate scientists have been all over the board in the prognostications about what our temps will be. And its gotten increasingly worse! They’ve gone beyond covering the board with temp projections, now they’re projecting droughts…..and floods, winters with no snow and snowier winters. Now they’re even imagining droughts where none exists.
At some point, one has to realize these aren’t science based projections, these are little more than parlor game tricks. I probably wouldn’t engage in ridicule and scorn for these people if they limited their scam to an occasional naive person off the street, but these people are scamming the whole world and need worse than ridicule and scorn.
The time has passed to give any serious consideration to the prospect of catastrophic climate change caused by CO2 emissions. There simply isn’t a shred of credibility left. And our friend Hansen was one of the ringleaders in this second rate circus.
SUYTS
You certainly are entitled to believe that these are “parlor game tricks”. You people really do need to study the history of science, and the Duhane Quinne response to Popper.
I don’t know of ANY paper that posits a 10-15° increase/doubling CO2. Lovelock is the only person I know who comes close to that, and his views are about the most extreme of anyone, and he is NOT a climate scientist.
If your analysis is correct then clearly darwinian evolution has been nothing but a scam for the last 150 years.
You aren’t keeping up, Tony
http://www2.ucar.edu/news/3628/earth-s-hot-past-could-be-prologue-future-climate
This is the same dude who said recently warming has continued unabated in the last decade, despite his own figures disagreeing with him. The guy is in self delusion.
suyts
What is unfortunate for the “doubling of co2 causing this much, or that much warming” crowd is that there still has not been found any positive feedback from extra co2. There has been found negative feedback though. And negative feedback ruins all their various projections from “doubling of co2” since they don’t like to put negative feedback into their computer models. How much negative feedback is there? Not known yet. That’s something that needs be studied more!
Tony Duncan says:
January 16, 2011 at 5:54 am
he is NOT a climate scientist.
John Christy is a climate scientist. And he is in the IPCC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs7t475ZVXQ
Tony Duncan says:
January 16, 2011 at 5:54 am
he is NOT a climate scientist.
Roy Spencer is a climate scientist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMRVXhCfXZY
Interesting article. I have read of scientists contending that there are long term feedbacks that would kick in over centuries. Of course this paper does not say 10-15/CO2 doubling. The temp range he is discussing is over several centuries and 3-4x of CO2 by 2100, and it is discussing historical periods where there are other factors that impact temp. So he is not even saying that those temps will occur in the current situation, though in this short article that is implied.
Tony Duncan says:
January 16, 2011 at 5:54 am
he is NOT a climate scientist.
Richard Lindzen is a climate scientist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7elbwKVwT4&NR=1
Amino,
WHERE did you find these scientists? I have never heard of Christy, Spencer or Lindzen! Wow, and what they are saying I have never heard either. It has totally opened my mind to the TRUTH.
So what is it that you think I don’t agree with these rather short statements? I assume that you think I disagree with them?
But this could’t be the same Christy and Spencer that have 2010 being tied for the hottest year in the instrumental record could it?
No they don’t.
Tony, the time frame of evolution and climate change are entirely different. Tony, they’ve been blathering this stuff for almost 40 years! None of it is correct! The polar caps have been going to melt in the next few years for over 20 years now. We haven’t seen an increase in hurricanes or cyclones. There isn’t one species of animals that have gone extinct because its 1/2 degree warmer. None! After a generation of study, time and money, they are no closer to telling you even in a general fashion how warm the next decade will be. Hansen’s 1988 paper is every bit as valid as any similar one released today. Yeh, climate is weather over a longer period of time, but Tony, how long before you realize it was all bs?
We are no closer now then we were 30 years ago in understanding our climate. Mostly because of this inane obsession over a chemical synonym for energy used. Tony, you’re certainly free to believe what you will, also. But certainly, I hope you understand why we point and laugh at people that have proven themselves to be wrong on almost all accounts. (And the occasional point-and-laugh at people that still buy into this painfully obvious dissimulation.) From this study to Mann’s hockey stick to the Himalayan melt to the 97% consensus to Amazon sensitivity, polar bears, penguins dying, the lies about the forecasts. We even have a scientist that now states scientists don’t bear the burden of the null hypothesis. Its all been bs. And people still buy into this, and I’m still paying for it.
Steve,
Well then you better sue Pilke for putting this lying quote on his website.
Christy. “It looks like 1998 might stay the warmest year in the record, but will most certainly be within 0.1 C — an amount that isn’t significant in terms of measurement precision. It would be a statistical tie.”
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/global-temperature-report-november-2010-from-the-university-of-alabama-at-huntsville/
Oh really. Hansen claimed a record by 0.01. Now you are telling me that 0.1 isn’t significant.
SUYTS,
if it is so obviously all wrong, then it must be a conspiracy, and you guys need to get control of the peer review process and get the thousands of honest scientists that can see the truth to start publishing papers that cause the conspiricist papers to be revoked by the leading science journals. Anything less and you are accessories to the ecosocialist conspiracy
Steve,
My name isn’t Christy. Talk to him about it.
lol, way to breeze right by that one!
“Kiehl drew on recently published research that, by analyzing molecular structures in fossilized organic materials, showed that carbon dioxide levels likely reached 900 to 1,000 parts per million about 35 million years ago.” but just prior to that statement, “That compares with current levels of about 390 parts per million, and pre-industrial levels of about 280 parts per million.
I thought 35 million years ago was pre-industrial. Learn something new every day!
SUYTS,
Yup, those climate scientist have always said SUV’s and coal plants were the sole source of CO2.
Tony, my point was, they’ve put a magic number on what someone thinks our CO2 levels should be. Why is pre-industrial 280 preferred over other pre-industrial values? It isn’t as if the CO2 levels have been static for thousands of years. Its ridiculous. Its arbitrary. Its a number that fits with an agenda. Same goes for the baselines used to determine anomalies. Why do we use those time periods? Because Hansen had some fond childhood memories of cool autumn walks with his nanny? Its arbitrary and subjective. Its ridiculous.
What kind of science pulls numbers out of their posterior and say from a dynamic, ever fluid, ever changing system, with mechanisms we can’t even identify right now much less quantify, we determine these are optimal values for everyone in the world? They can’t even define the optimal temperature, much less determine what it takes to get us there.
Yep, 13 years of emitting CO2 and it still can’t get warmer than 1998. ……. Falsified.
SUYTS
repeat after me, Duhene Quine. And please supply me with the consensus that temps will rise linearly in lockstep with CO2.
You might also ask Mike if there are any natural cycles that play into the temp of the planet.
Tony, I didn’t say anything about a linear raise in temps. But after 13 years, there is suppose to be some discernible raise in the temps. When is it going to get warmer with the increase of CO2? Are we back to the millennium man talking long term? Or is it now that CO2 doesn’t really cause warming, but only climate events?
Pierre Duhem
As popular as the Duhem–Quine thesis may be in philosophy of science, in reality Pierre Duhem and Willard Van Orman Quine stated very different theses. Duhem believed that only in the field of physics can a single individual hypothesis not be isolated for testing. He says in no uncertain terms that experimental theory in physics is not the same as in fields like physiology and certain branches of chemistry. Also, Duhem’s conception of “theoretical group” has its limits, since he states that not all concepts are connected to each other logically. He did not include at all a priori disciplines such as logic and mathematics within the theoretical groups in physics, since they cannot be tested.
[edit] Willard Van Orman Quine
Quine, on the other hand, in “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”, presents a much stronger version of underdetermination in science. His theoretical group embraces all of human knowledge, including mathematics and logic. He contemplated the entirety of human knowledge as being one unit of empirical significance. Hence all our knowledge, for Quine, would be epistemologically no different from ancient Greek gods, which were posited in order to account for experience. Quine even believed that logic and mathematics can also be revised in light of experience, and presented quantum logic as evidence for this. Years later he retracted this position; in his book Philosophy of Logic, he said that to revise logic would be essentially “changing the subject”. In classic logic, connectives are defined according to truth values. The connectives in a multi-valued logic, however, have a different meaning than those of classic logic. As for quantum logic, it is not even a logic based on truth values, so the logical connectives lose the original meaning of classic logic. Quine also notes that deviant logics usually lack the simplicity of classic logic, and are not so fruitful.
It isn’t falsifiable because the concept doesn’t raise to the level of being able to articulate the null hypothesis, which, in and of itself, invalidates the concept.
SUYTS,
Very good.
And since you are acknowledging that temp rise doesn’t have to be in lockstep with CO2 then we are just haggling over the price.
I actually tend to agree with the “earlier”Quine regarding at least the possibility that mathematics and logic could be redefined in some ways that we can’t imagine at the moment.
You contend that climate science is designed to be unfalsifiable and I do not believe that to be the case. I am pretty confident that if over the next 10 years global mean temps dropped .5°c and numerous other parameters that are cited by climate scientists reversed themselves on roughly the same time scale, you would see significant numbers of climate scientists abandoning the theory as it is held now.
Heat capacity of the oceans.
Tony, I vote for an alternative hypothesis:
Lets put all those legally vulnerable to prosecution for fraud, misappropriation of funds, failure to comply with valid FOI requests, etc on trial and then jail them as the obviously guilty crooks they are.
The pucker factor would straighten out the other offenders and make all things right with science, correcting this terrible lurch into corruption science has endured.
THAT is what is required.
BioBob,
Yup, that is the american way. That procedure certainly showed this scientists under Stalin that they had to practice correct “Socialist” science.
And we can have our own correct “American” science
>>Lets put all those legally vulnerable to prosecution for fraud, misappropriation of funds, failure to comply with valid FOI requests, etc on trial and then jail them as the obviously guilty crooks they are.<<
Steve,
Where was your faith in heat capacity of the oceans when we discussed Bikini Island coral survival rates? I brought it up a number of times and you never acknowledged it.
So of course I agree – the oceans have tremendous heat capacity.
Next time they blow up a thermonuclear weapon, you should be happy to snorkel nearby at a depth of 30 feet.
Steve,
Corals don’t need snorkels. Do you really want to revisit that ridiculous argument?
Sorry, I forgot my personal troll policy for a minute.
Tony, yes, it was really hard to determine what he was stating. He did speak long term, but then he went on to say CO2 causes double the heat in terms of watts/mtr squared, but maybe he really meant instead watts, but watt time, similar to watt/hours, but instead watt/centuries? I really hope he isn’t that dumb, but one never knows. It is a common error among laymen.
TonyD:
I guess you have not been watching the Oceans recently!
Your -.5C is happening now and will continue cooling as the warmth seen in the polar regions is NOT being replaced at the tropics. Five years from now you will be wishing for weather like we experienced last decade.
BTW: .1C is not statistically significant and well within the range of error.
Mike,
There we have it. Temps will decrease significantly over the next 5-10 years.
So you FINALLY are saying Steve is wrong about something? So Christy’s assertion that 2010 is tied for highest mean Global temp in the instrumental record is correct?
UAH data shows 2010 cooler than 1998. Why do you persist with this nonsense?
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
Steve
Argue with Mike.
ZZZZzzzz………….