Andy Revkin says :
despite short-term ups and downs, global warming continues much as predicted
This is complete nonsense. GISS temperatures are running below Hansen’s zero emissions Scenario C
“Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes a reduced linear linear growth of trace gases, and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.”
The all new GISS chicken entrails model does so much better at projections* but makes a real mess on the lab bench.
*projections are predictions with error-bars.
Scenario “A” is the only one that we should be concerned about. Even that one was below the released “Pollutants” the future held, at the time of publication. The others are just “What if” he was overstating the amounts released of, so called, GHGs.
Andy still has Cranialanalinsertitis!
Global Warming Kills 1 in New York:
Headline: Blizzard kills one person, buries New England and knocks out power to thousands
“Still, the only known loss of life from the storm occurred in a vehicle accident in New York. An 18-year-old woman lost control of her car in the falling snow and struck a 74-year-old man walking near the side of the road, police in Poughkeepsie said. He died in hospital from his injuries.”
http://wgntv.com/2013/02/09/blizzard-kills-one-person-buries-new-england-and-knocks-out-power-to-thousands/
————————–
Reality: young woman kills old man with her car, RIP.
News media: Blizzard kills 1
Hype: Global Warming Kills.
Shameful manipulation nonsense.
In other words, there were fewer automobile accidents than normal.
That is where warm biased adjusted data comes in. People like Revkin are fed that crap and think warming is much worse that it actually is.
If the computer models show warming and the science is settled (but then actual cooling takes place), the raw temperature data must be wrong and needs to be “adjusted” to fit the models and the “settled science”. More Orwellian than anything Orwell could ever imagine!
Today I watched the documentary ‘The Goebbels Experiment’ based on Joseph Goebbels’ diary. It was quite instructive.
Revkin is probably quoting AR4 model runs which don’t run as hot as Hansen’s 1980’s model. So this is an apple to oranges comparison in that respect. However, at no point does any climate model exceed the trend line since January 2000, so Revkin’s graph is also a distortion. At first glance it looks like one of those graphs that Gavin Schmidt knocks out from time to time.
There has been no warming for 16 years. The whole thing is a complete farce and an affront to science.
Duly updated by Makiko Sato:
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/PNAS_GTCh_Fig2.pdf
Not quite. They pulled a trick in that graph. Note that the land-ocean temps from the 1960s and 1970s are above the model predictions? How could that have happened?
They shifted the temperature graph baseline upwards to make it seem like the models were not as bad as they are, and they also threw in an irrelevant land-only graph to further confuse the reader.