Yes, it was a scandal, being your side was caught engaging in open fraud. At this stage, you're indistinguishable from a flat-earther howling about the "great round-earth conspiracy to falsify science". You're ignored for the same reasons flat-earthers are ignored. That fact that your cult indoctrination has you very sincerely believing in your flat-earth/denier conspiracy twaddle doesn't mean anyone else has to care.
Hansen did NOT say that Arctic would be ice free in 5-10 years. Seth Borenstein said that. What Hansen said is that "We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes, the Arctic is the first tipping point and it's occurring exactly the way we said it would."
Who predicted that? And no. Hansen did NOT say that. And yes. I am aware of the Salon article. It is fake news.
Just look it up, how hard is it?? Climate Depot always has links... if you had any interest in looking at the facts you can find it easy enough. You've already made up your mind though... so you're hopeless. Maybe it'll get so hot you'll burst into flames?? Lol...
No, you did not clearly indicate that your 1F claim was from 1988. If you had I would have agreed with you. Which doomsday prediction widely supported by the scientific consensus are you claiming that has failed to materialize? First, this is not a dataset. Second, the 3-9F warming prediction mentioned in this article is from Philip Shabecoff who is some reporter from the New York Times. Note that Hansen did not predict 3-9F of warming by 2025 either. Here is what Hansen predicted in 1988 straight from the horses mouth as they say. https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf His prediction is for 1.1C of from the 1960 baseline. As of 2017 we are at 0.9C of warming. Not bad especially considering his prediction assumed no volcanic eruptions and business-as-usual emission inputs for his modeling. Pinatubo (1991) cooled the planet by 0.4C and the Montreal Protocol reduced greenhouse gas forcing by 10%. Just to be clear here...corollary 6 just says that the more activity there is in a field the more likely you are to find an isolated finding that is incorrect. It is not saying that the consensus conclusions in more active fields have higher rates of being wrong. So your insinuation that because the IPCC uses so many experts to review the findings means their conclusions are wrong is itself absolutely incorrect. If you're using the cited paper above as your justification for this viewpoint then you've overstepped the interpretation of that paper. Great. Let's ask some follow up questions. How did the Sun cause the Earth to accumulate 300e21 joules since 1985 with solar activity peaking in 1958 and with total solar irradiation flat lining and then declining rapid especially after 1985? Why is the stratosphere cooling while the troposphere, hydrosphere, and cryosphere warm? How could the Sun create that unique effect? How was it possible that the Earth got so much warmer in the distant past when the Sun was dimmer? Remember, the Sun brightens by 1% every 100 million years or said another way it was 1% dimmer for every 100 million years in the past. How do you solve the faint young Sun problem?
Hansen didn't account for El Nino effects as McKittrick and Christy show... so the leftist cheerleaders claiming his scenarios A and B were "remarkably accurate" is bogus. The one that was closest was Scenario C, but that capped CO2 at 368 ppm and since 2017 levels were at 407 ppm, that scenario would backfire and demonstrate that CO2 is not a driver of global temps. The bottom line is the models don't match observations - it has always been thus. Which is why the fraudsters have to play games with scenarios to deceive the uninitiated.
Scenario's A and C were not remarkably accurate. But, then again they were scenarios that modeled a halt to GHG emissions growth and worst-case-unlikely GHG emissions growth. It was scenario B that Hansen felt was most likely to occur. ENSO is a natural cycle caused by heat flux variations between the hydrosphere and atmosphere. Hansen's model was hydrosphere-atmosphere coupled. That means it does model El Nino and La Nina events which is plainly obvious by the up and down swinging around the trendline. Note what Christy does...he selectively removes the El Nino events without removing an equal magnitude of La Nina events when criticizing the work of peers. Think about that for a moment...he effectively removes a significant portion of the warming models produce when comparing model data to raw observations or in other cases he leaves the raw model data untouched but effectively removes the warming associated with El Nino events from the observational record. It's worth repeating...he literally removes (makes it disappear) as a way of saying old predictions aren't as accurate as they actually were. You tell me...does that rise to the level of fraud? The reality was actually between scenarios B and C. Remember, scenario B was business-as-usual and as I already pointed out business-as-usual did not happen because of the Montreal Protocol and Pinatubo. Had he modeled a scenario with the correct inputs his model would have actually underestimated the warming. But even as-is his prediction wasn't too bad all things considered and especially since this was one of the first computer model projections ever done. This was 30 years ago when computer models were in their infancy. Well, I have to agree here. Models do not match observations; at least not perfectly. And they never will perfectly match observations. That does not mean they aren't useful. I'm pretty sure when Christy removes warming that qualifies as deception. The question is...does it qualify as fraud? You tell me. And what do you think about people taking Schneider's quote out of context? Is that fraud?
Considering your past history of comments on subjects, such as evolution, I'm sure that science is not your forte.
I don't suppose it occurred to you that the actual study the headline you referenced doesn't actually factually support the headline, did it?
You are still uneducated in what is incorporated in your graph and cannot accept the actual continuous records of tide gauges. Besides, not one country or community use that global record for planning. That graph is for the useful idiots.
New study in the journal of atmospheric science concludes that natural influence is the primary driver of climate modification. Mao 2019. Of course, I doubt many folks will see this. Worse, they predict that by 2111 that the average global temp will be -.6985C below historic averages. So, the conclusion this study reaches is that the climate will trend towards cooling towards a point that promoted real glaciation to rekindle. Why, given the "consensus" could these conclusions be reached in new study? It seems entirely antithetical to the AGW liturgy and flies in the face of conclusions reached in the media about this science... This is going to leave a mark.....
This is a cross post from the other thread in which you mentioned the Mao 2019 publication. This Mao 2019 paper is the result of the K-line technique to elicit a periodic signal in data and project that periodic signal forward. It is typically used for stock market analysis. Mao used it on a temperature dataset (land only; not global). The technique assumes the data can self describe it's periodicity and that this periodicity has equal amounts of upward and downward pressures to the movements. The reason why the technique produces cooling is because the technique will always produce an opposite trajectory that is equal to the temporal and amplitude behavior to the data it is analyzing. If the temperature had gone down from 1880 to 2010 then the technique would produce warming from 2010 to 2140. But because it warmed from 1880 to 2010 it produces cooling from 2010 to 2140. In other words, the technique Mao used produced cooling in the future because it warmed in the past. Let that sink in for a moment. Do you see the problem?
Same response. The conclusion you reach isn't supported by the evidence. Sorry it doesn't align with your narrative though. It seems super contradictory to it, and frankly, it should beg the question about the consensus as a whole, if for no other reason that it produces a contrary perspective in a space where folks like you insist there is uniformity of thought. Clearly, not. Wax on about not understanding the implications of the method though. That seems useful...
I think you're still confused. Let me try to explain the problems. He is not even predicting a global mean temperature because his inputs are not global mean temperatures. The k-line technique is a stochastic oscillator. The extrapolation is highly dependent upon on the range you choose for your inputs. For example, had he used 1905 to 1960 the 1960 to 2015 projection would be for 0.6C of cooling to end 2015. The difference between that projection and observation would be a whopping 1.4C. That error is even larger than the actual amount of warming that really did occur. You can back test the stochastic technique and see that for almost all date ranges it fails (really bad I might add) to match observations. You don't need fancy math to do this. You can actually estimate it visually. Just mentally pick a range in his graph and extrapolate that out by simply flipping the trajectory of the trendline. Every up becomes a down and every down becomes an up. Stochastic oscillators aren't useful here because they assume that all dependent variables working on the input dataset will work in the same way just in the opposite direction exactly at the moment the stochastic oscillator is initiated. In other words, his result is dependent on the fact that all physical processes acting on the climate system will magically know that he used a stochastic oscillator and published a paper on it and they will all divinely reverse course...instantly. Yeah, that doesn't happen in a physical system dictated by the laws of physics. Stochastic oscillators are useful for stock market analysis because human behavior has a stochastic element to it. Prices go up because there is a demand. Demand means a lot of people want to buy. However, the buy power of people gets exhausted because the money supply isn't infinite so buyers are slowly being converted into sellers. A tipping point is reached and the market flips from buyer dominated to seller dominated. The whole cycle repeats. Stochastic oscillators are self defeating. The more the projection comes true the more the oscillator will want to reverse course. In other words, as the oscillator ingests more and more data it changes it's projection for the same time period in the exact opposite way than what it originally projected. For example, if the climate system really did start tracking the k-line then by 2075 (about the halfway point) the new k-line would predict a completely different value for 2140 than what it did originally even though the original projections was 100% perfect up to 2075. Weird isn't it? And remember, this is just one publication from one guy. He does not define the consensus. The consensus is derived from analyzing all available lines of evidence and merging them together into a single idea/explanation/theory that best matches all observations.
So your response is.. blah blah... blah blah blah... found a criticism on google and wasn't decent enough to cite the author, blah blah... you don't like the outcome. But this is interesting. This "one guy" characterization. Because, frankly, he isn't the only one. But more, if there truly is consensus, there shouldn't then ever be even one, right? Because there is consensus. That is, what that word means and entails. Consensus doesn't include, well, us, but not those who don't agree with us. So when we get folks who tell us that oceanic transference drives the changes we see, your only reply is nani nani boo boo, because it's all you have. But hey, you don't like the methodology. That seems to be the same thing that you criticize others for complaining about, and why, suddenly, do you get to take that position given your history of ignoring it previously?
I have never heard a more retarded claim. We're not talking about COOLING we're talking about COLD. Look -- the Sun may be cooling, but it's not cold. Don't you understand the difference? I can't help but notice that every time someone makes a point, you ignore it and revert to something that is non controversial. The Earth is all of 1ºF warmer since 1998. So what?
With the climate change we are witnessing, not every location is getting warmer. It CAN cause some locations to get colder. However, the comments about cold being better than warm are ridiculous when applied to Earth's climate as a whole. Earth is getting warmer, and THAT brings with it a number of serious issues. Any number of sites can tell you about the problems of a warming earth: water, agriculture, sea level, people movement, etc. Our own government sees it as a significant national security issue.
