Hansen’s disciples are in a complete tizzy over Roy Spencer’s model. Some complain that his model matches the data, but for the wrong reasons. Others complain that his model isn’t stable over thousand year periods.
They prefer Hansen’s model – which has proven itself completely worthless on short time scales, and forced them to come up with brain damaged arguments about China and a missing chunk of ice in the Hudson Bay last December.
do they HAVE to fail with their debating skills so badly every time ? all we have to do is collect those pathetic excuses and use them to answer to ANY of their future works. And to respond to AR5. Unrealistic models, no millennial stability, wrong reasons etc etc
“Hansen’s model – which has proven itself completely worthless”
Not worthless financially though.
Look at all the government funding it gave NASA and all the climate research jobs it produced! It is even worse than the DOT Com or Housing bubbles! The end result may well be the collapse of some world governments that fell for the scam.
By “Hansen’s model” do you mean GISS ModelE?
Steve, I put this up at Chiefio’s but it fits here too.
“Comment from: ianl8888 July 30th, 2011 at 9:42 am
@sean2829
“now its being cited as a source of light reflective aerosols that can explain cooling over the last 10 years.”
The base paper for this assertion is “Anthropogenic sulfur dioxide emissions:1850-2005?, Smith,S.J. et al, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 1101-1116, 2011, wherein Smith et al promote a measurement of the sulphur content of coal burnt in Chinese power stations
Unhappily for this notion of SOx aerosols helping “cool” the planet, the guesstimate of sulphur content in raw/washed coals used in the paper is > 50% higher than laboratory-measured content. Since sulphur content in raw/washed coal is a make-or-break parameter for supply contracts, the widespread lab measurements are accurate and very carefully monitored
Yet another wishful Polyanna notion promoted to a gullible media (which are infested by scientific illiterates and mathematical innumerates)
And, as cementafriend’s post notes:
CSG (coal seam gas) = very, very BAD
LNG (liquified natural gas) = better, mo’ greenie friendly
yet both are methane CH4”
From http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/07/natural-gas-more-polluting-than-coal-only-according-to-the-ipcc-a-note-from-cementafriend/#comments