Not only did Dana use the wrong scenario (B when it should have been A) but he plotted scenario B too low (red line)
GISS is now 0.4C below scenario B, and Dana shows it 0.2 C below.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Tel on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Petit_Barde on Ellen Flees To The UK
- dm on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Richard E Fritz on HUD Climate Advisor
Come on, Steve. You know how hard it is to keep up with the dynamic changes in historical temperature data. If your data set is a couple weeks old, it will be way too high. Give the poor guy a break.
Dana’s still young, and practice makes perfect 😉
I think Dana “Corrected” Hansen’s scenario B prediction for the reduced rate that the CO2 in the atmosphere has risen in comparison to the amount of CO2 mankind has put into the atmosphere. In other words, Hansen gets credit for his mistaken prediction of how much atmospheric CO2 would rise in response to mankind’s addition of CO2. The fact that this unpredicted and unpredictable growth in the earth’s CO2 sink totally invalidates CAGW all by itself seems to escape Dana.
Most things escape Dana as far as I can tell.
But he seems to have excelled himself this time. I suspect that even some of his erstwhile supporters will have trouble swallowing this crock of sh*t.
“Observed temperature”? Since when did the CAGW crowd use observed temperatures? Shouldn’t that be labelled “Just some numbers that we made up and pretend to be real temperatures”?
Beat me to it. +10.
I think he needs something for the Gaurdian.
******Also, big time disclosure regarding the BBC, secret meetings, decision to present completely biased climate change coverage seven or eight years ago–and IMO– a highly illegal exchange of money to do so.
Anthony has it in detail at WUWT*********************************************************************************
Pencil neck still holds the lead. Neandernutter is making headway tho. He needs something really vile if he plans to take the lead.
As far as I can see, the graph appeared in Abraham and Nuttyjelly’s 6 Jan Guardian blog here:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism
A truly remarkable feat of disingenuous waffle and downright mendacity.
They’re getting more and more desperate with every passing day.
Steve, changing the climate sensitivity number from the vintage 1988 to the more current climate sensitivity factor was simply normal science to ensure an apples to apples analysis. The real fraud is how you try to make this into something it is not. I detect envy of real scientists on this site.
Please tell that to your stockbroker. “I want to change my 25 year old purchase because I have new data”
It’s not “new data” but more state of the art, better and more accurate data. The formula does not change so apples to apples comparisons can be made for better comparisons between the past and present. Every branch of science does this.
Keep on talking. Eventually you’ll convince yourself.
“I detect envy of real scientists on this site.”
Oh yeah.. we envy scientists that completely fabricate data and attribute it to someone that didn’t even create it.