This graph is updated to the latest GISS temperatures, and is the only real story in global warming science. Since the year 2000, temperatures have remained below Hansen’s zero emissions Scenario C. No matter how much cheating and spinning they do at NCDC and NASA, their scam is dead.
NASA has (of course) deleted the evidence, which was located here :
pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
But you can get a copy here :
And how are we going to kill the undead global warming meme?
Defenestration?
http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6837072_f520.jpg
“A rendition of the Defenestration of Prague. The manure pile is not featured.”
(I think I can come up with a nice fresh manure pile if needed.)
My arab, molly mule along and the pigs will be happy to contribute as well. I assume we’re shipping to a Washington DC address?
alongI wish we could edit!I was thinking you might want to contribute. The pig manure will certainly add a bit of je ne sais quoi.
Je sais que… but this is a family friendly blog.
I’d add a puddle.
Niel,
I was thinking of places like:
2880 Broadway, New York, NY
116th St & Broadway, New York, NY
University Park, State College, PA
My cats will be proud to contribute.
Also known as ‘assisted suicide’
I urge moderation. Neither of the two Prague defenestrations brought good, long lasting results. I know the temptation is strong, though, whether one is a Praguer or not.
Also, with the exemption of the Occupy movement, in most American municipalities and on university campuses it is illegal to pile manure on the sidewalks. It has to be bagged and what would be the fun in that?
Let’s not look for solutions abroad. Tar and feathers is a more patriotic method and there is less to clean up afterwards.
True, True But it was so much fun picturing certain academics covered in fresh manure on the outside since they extrude so much manure in the inside of ‘learned journals’
PhD=Pile it Higher and Deeper…
If the pile were an order of magnitude smaller than the pile of bovine excrement they’ve spouted over the past 30 yrs, you’d still need to use a window on the Empire State Building to throw them from.
I was reading this and thinking, how virtual politicians are now.
Colorado Wellington,
I was just thinking. We won’t be putting the fresh manure on the side walks but in the shrubbery/lawn area next to the building. We can always say it is ‘organic fertilizer’ after all horse manure is great for the rosebushes to be added to the top of the pile.
an icicle stake through the heart… appropriate and leaves no evidence (assuming it melts). 🙂
Better yet, through the eye.
Why?
It’s harder to detect, and the icicle pierces the brain. Of course, a “silver spike” through the heart is more symbolic.
I am not sure of the relationship between Hansen’s scenario “C” and the IPCC AR4 “commitment” scenario. The latter involves 16 models, including giss_model_e_r and ukmo_hadcm3. .
However, the trend from 2000-2014 (to date) for the “commitment” scenario is 0.9c/century, while that for the WMO mean is 0.69c/century. So even the “commitment” scenario appears to be higher than observations.
It is Hansen and NASA and NOAA who are flat out lying to Congress.
Hansen, as head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, made the prediction. He was wrong. Case closed.
Hansen’s testimony on climate change to congressional committees in 1988 along with a nasty bit of stagecraft is what convinced Congress to ratify the UN Convention on Climate Change.
Now we know about the stagecraft and we know the dire predictions of Hansen are wrong. Should we under those circumstances continue down the path of economic suicide while our enemies (Russia and China) are allowed to build their industrial and military strength?
Only those who have the best interests of our enemies would say yes.
And make no mistake China is our enemy.
Hackers Linked to China’s Army Seen From EU to D.C.
(wwwDOT)bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-26/china-hackers-hit-eu-point-man-and-d-c-with-byzantine-candor.html
THE CHINESE COMMUNIST TARGETING OF AMERICA: An in-depth monetary, economic, geopolitical
and precious metals analysis
China Maneuvers To Take Away U.S.’ Dominant Reserve Currency Status
seekingalpha(DOT)com/article/1578602-china-maneuvers-to-take-away-u-s-dominant-reserve-currency-status
China Picks at the Scab to Keep the Wound Fresh
Lessons of history: China’s century of humiliation: The repercussions of British opportunism in China during the Opium Wars can be felt in geopolitics even today
m(DOT)gulfnews.com/lessons-of-history-china-s-century-of-humiliation-1.884742
Leading Chinese Dissident Warns: China Planning Nuclear War
And Clinton gave China the military know-how — From the New York Times no less:
China is also making major inroads in South America and Africa.
Hanson believed at the time (which is important) he was doing the right thing.. I understand where he was coming from. reality takes over and it’s a bitch.
Did I miss a statement from Hanson that he was wrong in both his “science” and the vehement way he has presented it and apologized for it all?
The only thing I have seen ‘Death Trains Hansen’ do is advocate a move to nuclear power.
You can only compare the observations to scenario A; Do nothing. The gap is an abyss.
Scenario B and C are irrelevant.
Correction, the trend for the “commitment” scenario should have been 0.95c/century.
Reading the paper briefly and saw a few interesting things. This should be the kind of thing they seriously go back and look at and ask “how good were our projections 25 years ago”?
1. They model the heat only going 125 meters into the ocean. So below their original 65 meters “mixed layer” but still just a fraction of the ocean. Since now they think it is heating the deep oceans 700 and 2000 m down (by ~0.02 degrees), would not this change how long it takes the surface to heat? Like by thousands of years?
2. They did a 100 year model run with fixed 1958 GHGs and saw internal variability up and down by 0.3 to 0.4 degrees in periods of ~20 years. Their std. dev. was ~0.1 degrees. So from this I would say they can’t really “project” temperatures for any given year to within better than 0.1 degrees, thus they can’t make any declarations about this particular (older) model until temperatures change by more than 0.2 degrees and really since they saw random variations of ~0.4 degrees over 20 years, they can’t say shit about their predictions matching or not matching until there is a rate of change greater than 0.2 per decade and until there is a total change of >0.5 degrees C. Add in natural climate variability and precision of the thermometers adds up to another ~0.5 degrees over say 50 years. So, to be sure that the models and temperatures were moving together and it was real and that their models reflect reality, they would need to see a change of ~ 1.0 degrees C. That is, if they were doing science.
3. Of course, what the defenders of the faith say when this paper is brought up are that the models are better now with improved forcings. And that since some of the GHGs (methane, etc.) did not rise as rapidly as predicted (even though CO2 rose more) that this is not really (as) wrong. They can also point to the heat going into the ocean. But then they somehow never say as I did in 1. above that this will increase the amount of time we have (even if you believe the models).
Honest scientists will look at all the data, new and old, and honestly admit the failures so that they can improve the models and would tell people to take the output of the models as speculative.
I looked at the source for the ‘removed’ page at NASA and it literally is “Not found.” Not a regular ‘404’ page. To me this indicates that the page wasn’t just removed, but someone quite deliberately replaced it with the “Not found.” text instead. And despite the fact that everything NASA produces is funded by our tax dollars, they have a ‘robots.txt’ which prevents archive.org from giving you the old versions. Even that by itself is an indication of the corruption at NASA.
Who cares about corruption? their science if flawed. they can keep their money. that’s someone else’s job.
Is* flawed ffs
Let’s see how long it lasts, but here’s a working link to it on a NASA server…
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
(notice the subtle change in title?)
The nice thing (at least) is that the archived version and the NASA version have the same checksum…
md5=9b43080820e31505cf33b353938690c1
And here’s the Wiley link…
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JD093iD08p09341/abstract; (Of course the Wiley link is PAYWALLED!!!)
The 30 Years War is why my distant ancestors from France ended up here in the New World. And is directly why, when the Constitution was written, wanted a huge separation of Church and State.
These Protestants didn’t know what they caused by throwing two Catholic counts and their secretary out the window of the Prague Castle. The predictive skill of their history models must have been much lower than what we have today.
The scam is not dead. It has no facts, but then scams usually do not. As long as you have Gruberites, the scam will continue.
Seems that Hansen et al paper is still available through this link. Correct me if wrong.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha02700w.html
That’s it, but without access to the directory it is almost impossible to keep track of files that they keep renaming.
I understand, much thanks.
Here is an example of hatred towards yourself and what I deal with on DTT dot com. This is a response this poster made to my posting the information you supplied in this article.
http://defendingthetruth.com/current-events/45182-climate-catastrophe-10.html#post756407
“Oh sure, that’s a “real” copy of the original, unaltered info. You know this to be a fact?
More likely, you know this to be a fact because ol’ Guru Goddard sayeth so. Good as gold. Guru Goddard who once embarrassed Guru Watts with his inaccuracies.
Once again, AGW denialists have no honesty, no honor, and no credibility regarding the climate and human impacts on it.
They make it up as they go, they always claim to have a corner on “the truth,” they never integrate all of their “real science” into a climate model that makes accurate predictions … because they have no climate model at all.”
You can always point to the md5sum results between the cached elsewhere paper and the one from the NASA site…that should shut the moron up, if he believes that matching checksums indicates that the documents are the same (but with some of those folks, I’d say it’s touch and go on that point…the do believe in fairy dust and unicorn farts, after all). Checksums are ‘hard data’…
rah says:
December 21, 2014 at 2:17 am
“Did I miss a statement from Hanson that he was wrong in both his “science” and the vehement way he has presented it and apologized for it all?”
Who fucken cares? his science is flawed and incorrect.. WRONG!