Not only is everything else about the graph fraudulent, but it turns out that Dana ‘s claimed Lindzen forecast is also a fake.
Does anyone have any idea where the curve attributed to me came from? I don’t do forecasts.
Dick
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
I think Dana and Peter need help.
http://m.dummies.com/how-to/content/the-essentials-of-working-with-excel-2010-charts.html
Pommie Guardian just making stuff up to suit the agenda.
The quoted Oodnadatta 54 degrees C max was not in the shade!!
BOM has no record of that in 2013 or 2014. I expect a correction any day now.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/jan/03/australian-heatwave-bushfires-video
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/201401/html/IDCJDW5050.201401.shtml
Lindzen or his representative might want to consider contacting the Guardian and inform them that one of their columnists is misrepresenting Lindzen in public.
It seems Dana just makes stuff up to support a never ending, never fallible stream of propaganda. Appears that he has no shame of lying because he so desperately believes he is correct.
Pretty simple calculation. Dana simply made it up, based on a comment Lindzein made.
In my extensive research into Richard Lindzen’s climate papers and talks, I’ve never been able to find an instance where he predicted how global temperatures would change in the future, other than to say in 1989,
“I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small,”
Of course, Dana assumed a natural variation of only 0.2 or so per century. If he assumed 0.8, Dick would be right on the button.
It is not a “simple calculation” or a calculation at all. Phil Jones says that pre-1940 warming was due to the sun. According to GISS 1997, that is 2/3 of the warming in the record.
The simplest calculation is always taking the number from the anal extraction tables. Which Dana did….
Nuccitelli is a lying piece of $hit disguised as a “scientist.”
Dana doesn’t know Dick.
I think this calls for a libel case.
Scenario A was the prediction for 1.5% increase per annum. The actual increase has been 2.5% per annum. Adjusting scenario B to match the observed CO2 increase is worse fraud than adjusting historical temperatures down.
In 1988 Lindzen said,
“…I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small,..”
Dana Nucitelli should be congratulated and thanked for doing humanity a service by demonstrating that Lindzen was correct. Extending the observed plot from 2010 to 2012 and aligning Dana’s trend with the observations at 1988 reveals that there is little to distinguish greenhouse gas warming from natural variability. According to Dana’s data the difference is about 0.1 C.
On the other hand, even with the benefit of the revisions to the scenario, Hansen is off by almost 0.4 Deg C in 2012.
Steven, I dug up a copy of the MIT Tech Talk of 1989, which reported Lindzen’s speech. It’s a fascinating and prescient speech … but there is absolutely nothing like the claimed “prediction” anywhere I can find.
w.