The GISS July anomaly went up to 0.60C, which places it squarely on top of Hansen’s scenario C – i.e. zero emissions after the year 2000. An honest evaluation would say that Hansen’s model has failed and his fears are unfounded.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
Recent Comments
- stewartpid on COP29 Preview
- GeologyJim on A Giant Eyesore
- GeologyJim on COP29 Preview
- GeologyJim on COP29 Preview
- arn on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Richard E Fritz on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- William on A Giant Eyesore
- arn on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Gordon Vigurs on COP29 Preview
- Peter Carroll on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
This also says categorically that the climate is behaving as if CO2 is NOT a major factor in any way! It reflects zero effective emissions – now that’s climate sensitivity you can respect!
Well, looks like we can all breathe a sigh of relief, trash the CAGW scenarios and get on with life. Next crisis please…
next crisis…..
President announces he has the solution to all of our problems….
…..but can’t tell us until after he gets back from vacation
lol, that’s a thing of beauty, innit?
but can’t tell us until after he gets back from vacation….
Or until he gets reelected.
;^)
It’s not a binary condition. Many predictions in SCIENCE are a sort of grey area BETWEEN right and wrong. For instance, you CAN’t really know if the Iron and Carbon that make up the steel in YOUR car won’t suddenly achieve fusion some afternoon, forming Arsenic (after a beta decay). These are all very large areas of uncertainty and doubt in SCIENCE if you denialators would just pay attention.
Stop being the first four letters of the second word in your screen name. The fact that the car does not become arsenic has to make one go Hmmm.
Persiflage is not in my name? 😛
touche’
Scenario “C” may be the most accurate projection (prediction?) of future global temperatures I have ever seen.
The fact that it was contrived with the sole purpose of promoting a political agenda, tells you everything you need to know about the state of climate science…..
Never fear. This will be the warmest year EVER after Hansen and company “interpret” the data. Just in the exact same manner they have determined this year has record low Arctic sea ice. And it will all be dutifully parroted with angst as such by the MSM.
“An honest evaluation would say …”
What is this thing called “honest evaluation” in climate science? Hansen would never go for “honest” anything.
But Hansen is just following orders from his boss, George Soros:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/39480
Interesting. Science as the whore of billionaire speculants. Where’s the outcry from the Left?
Oh, and we seem to be a little bit *under* the zero emissions scenario. I think this is the moment where the rise of the oceans begins to slow and the planet begins to heal.
OT
I thought Lat or suyts would have posted this by now:
Rick Perry:
“…..I do believe that the issue of global warming has been politicized………. a group of scientists, who have in some cases found to be manipulating this information…..”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xnxD_NSUQw
lol, I’m slipping……rough day……
I like the fact that he’s coming out swinging. I just hope he can withstand the soon to come backlash. Its going to be a very interesting primary…… why others are still in it, I’ve no idea. But it’ll come down to Perry, Bachmann, and Romney. Just looking at the differences….. I see Perry as carrying the social conservatives….Bachmann the fiscal conservatives and Romney the moderates/rhinos. The problem is, Perry and Bachmann’s bases will overlap and split. Both carry an appeal to each other’s base.
suyts says:
August 18, 2011 at 1:45 am
I like the fact that he’s coming out swinging. I just hope he can withstand the soon to come backlash.
He seems to be the type that knows full well what is coming. I think he’s just waiting for it and has plans for it. Obama and co. will be hitting below the belt. As long as Perry keeps everything above the belt everything should be fine. I think he knows America likes a clean fighter. At least he should.
Perry and Bachmann’s bases will overlap and split.
No split if they are both on the ticket. 🙂
Were you meaning they will split the vote in running against Romney? That is true. It could hand every state to Romney—maybe. But that leaves Romney under the Sword of Damocles. Because as the race gets closer to the end either Perry of Bachmann will see the handwriting on the wall, if they are in 3rd, they will not be the nominee, and will concede and endorse the other, handing all of their following to the other. At that point the horses hair will be cut and the Sword of Damocles will fall. Romney will immediately go into second (that is, if he was in first at the time, and that is no certainty) and be completely out of the picture. I don’t think either Perry or Bachmann would have Romney on their ticket as VP since they may have the best ticket with each other. But even if they would chose Romney as their VP the end result is still Romney is not President. To me it looks like Perry entering the race ended the chances of Romney becoming President.
Again, I am not so certain it is inevitable that Romeny is going to win the nomination. He may find himself having a very rough time dealing with both Perry and Bachmann.
“I like the fact that he’s coming out swinging. ”
I want a president with a pair, and I don’t care if they’re under a dress……………..
I’m sick and tired of all these wuzzied out, limp wristed, apologist, mamma’s boys….
…and that includes Bush too
Will the Republican establishment get their way and nominate their puppet/stuffed shirt (Romney) or will the Tea Party/Republican Base (the conservative real voters out there) have any say in the matter?
I have to admire this guy’s straightforward approach. “I don’t buy this theory”, and by the way, chasing after this “calamity” involves billions/trillions of dollars that should be growing jobs, not windmills.
Let’s see if other Repub’s have the courage to come out of the closet and say “I don’t buy it either!”
Michele Bachmann has never been a believer in global warming. But honestly, he has a way of getting his message across better than her. At the same time I think it’s necessary for him to put extra effort into making it clear because of his past with Al Gore. He has to put a Milky Way distance between himself and Al Gore. He can’t be lukewarm the way Romney is lukewarm about putting distance between himself and ObamneyCare.
“zero emissions” is not the same thing as “a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that net climate forcing ceases to increase”
It is apparent that net climate forcing *has* ceased to increase. What this says about assumed climate sensitivity to trace gas emissions is the big issue.
If the residence time of CO2 is thousands of years as they claim, the only way it could happen is with zero emissions.
Steven:
IF the residence time for CO2 was more than one year your answer would be correct.
Not if climate sensitivity to increased CO2 is negative 🙂
Stuart:
What it calls is the entire supposition that CO2 contributes to warming in any meaningful way. It calls the issue that natural causes was probably the primary mover of the weather patterns we experienced since the AGW farce started.
Quite! In fact those natural causes may well have been hiding a major negative sensitivy 🙂
If the GISS temperature analysis is at the Scenario C level, then you can bet London to a brick that the REAL temperatures are a ways below scenario C.
I would place a bet on they have no clue what the “Real” global temperature is or has been!
“If the GISS temperature analysis is at the Scenario C level, then you can bet London to a brick that the REAL temperatures are a ways below scenario C.”
Absolutely correct.
Alternate interpretation: The planet is sucking up anthropogenic CO2 as fast as it is being produced, leaving natural mechanisms to account for 100% of the measured changes.
I wonder why Homer did not think of that?
Steve… You scurrilous bastard you! You left off the “Error Bars”!!!!! 🙂
I often wonder if Hansen really believes he has the answers, or knew exactly what was going on – that the planet was in a natural warming cycle. If the action that he and his ilk advocated would have been taken, temperatures would be right where they are now, which is right on his Scenario C. They would have claimed credit for saving the Earth and been declared heros.
Is his Scenario C a coincidence?
Nevermind that what really happened from an emmisions standpoint was beyond Scenario A. Clearly his model has been invalidated. No wonder he is grasping at straws.
Baa Humbug says:
August 18, 2011 at 5:32 am
If the GISS temperature analysis is at the Scenario C level, then you can bet London to a brick that the REAL temperatures are a ways below scenario C.
Couldn’t agree more.