Earth: Operator's Manuel and Climate Change

[asterism]

The question is a serious one. Our current warming trend started before the Industrial Revolution. It has continued through a series of fits and starts and drops and rises and repeats while CO2 has increased at a very predictable and pretty contant rate.

The leading scientist in the world in this field could not predict the rise of temperature as a result of the increase of CO2. It makes you wonder, check that, it makes ME wonder if he really knows his stuff. Results matter to some and not to others.

I'm prettty sure that Dr. James Hansen will not self identify as a Republican, not that it matters. However, this failure does not seem to make his prediction any more accurate. 3 scenarios. 3 predictions. 3 fails. Nothing is more obvious than a mistake in triplicate.

Regarding education: You seem to be saying that the failure of the educational system is not a function of the system, the acedemics, the planning, the ciriculum, the administration or the basic philosophy. What's left? Oh, yes! The results. You are saying that the failure of the educational system to produce good results is the fault of the results.

Cue the circus music.

Three predictions, no links, guess that proves it. Once again, without a single study or bit of data, the GOP is right and the rest of the world is wrong. With that batting average, you would think that more than 6% of scientists in the US would be Republicans.

Here's a link to a cite that uses real data and tortures it trying to make it say that even though Hansen was wrong he was really right. Actual results, they seem to be saying are not important.

The complete increase of temperature was 100% of the increase. The Hansen predicted increase was 200%. He missed by 100%. If he had done nothing but average the increase over the previous 50 years, he would have hit it perfectly and could have done so in one afternoon at the cost of about a six pack, a sheet of paper and a pencil. The six pack is optional.

This your kind of site. Liberals saying that because they really, really want it to be so that it is so. Pay no attention to the actual results. Our prediction is what you need to embrace. Reality is nothing. Reality can change. Our agenda will never change.

I'm thinking that in their next article they will expain how the Big 0 will balance the budget by spending so much that eventually the greatness of the amount somehow defies physics due to its size and starts to shrink again by growing.

I suspect that, again, Conservatives will not be able to understand that. Why are Conservatives so wrapped in reality when it only exists in nature and other things.

Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong

Correction, Hansen missed by 50%. He predicted a rise of 200% and the rise was 50% of that. Any derivative that attempts to retroactively apply predictions after compensating the flaw in his model cannot erase the flaw in his model. That flaw still exists, though.

The only reason we don't have similar results of current models predicting out to 2020 is that it's not 2020 yet. You'll notice that his "Scenario B" model assumes a GHG rate close to reality with a significantly higher prediction for temperature than is real. You'll also note that his "Scenario C" which assumes a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000 is the most accurate of his predictions vs. temperature measurements. However, no such "rapid decline" in GHGs occurred.

Causation is not proven in this model. That's my real interest by the way, that even if there is a problem and humans can solve it we need to know what to solve. So far increased GHGs don't seem to be the problem. Perhaps it's a factor, but what does it cost to find out and what if we are wrong? I know we can't solve this problem without money and as it turns out arbitrarily changing the economics of our world costs real money, money needed to solve other problems.

Meanwhile fresh drinking water is expensive, some areas are running out of it but we still flush toilets with it and let it run off our roofs instead of catching it. WTF?

 

[whitehall]

Ever see Central Park in the Big Apple? Check out the limestone outcroppings with grooves in them and the boulders perched here and there on the outcroppings. It's evidence of a glacier stupid. North America was covered in ice in geological terms that translate to a blink of an eye. The sun did it stupid. We have more to fear from random fluctuations of the big ball of nuclear power in the sky than a bunch of SUV's full of soccer moms. The global warming myth is perpetuated by the (revolutionary) left while America is in financial trouble. What does it tell you when the president appoints a former leader of a arson and looting rampage and a communist to be on the green jobs board. Take an economically weakened country and beat them over the the head with guilt and promises of "new energy" that doesn't exist and transfer all the wealth to oil producing countries and you have a recipe for the revolution that socialists dreamed of as far back as the 30's.

 

[code1211]

Three predictions, no links, guess that proves it. Once again, without a single study or bit of data, the GOP is right and the rest of the world is wrong. With that batting average, you would think that more than 6% of scientists in the US would be Republicans.

Here's a link to a cite that uses real data and tortures it trying to make it say that even though Hansen was wrong he was really right. Actual results, they seem to be saying are not important.

The complete increase of temperature was 100% of the increase. The Hansen predicted increase was 200%. He missed by 100%. If he had done nothing but average the increase over the previous 50 years, he would have hit it perfectly and could have done so in one afternoon at the cost of about a six pack, a sheet of paper and a pencil. The six pack is optional.

This your kind of site. Liberals saying that because they really, really want it to be so that it is so. Pay no attention to the actual results. Our prediction is what you need to embrace. Reality is nothing. Reality can change. Our agenda will never change.

I'm thinking that in their next article they will expain how the Big 0 will balance the budget by spending so much that eventually the greatness of the amount somehow defies physics due to its size and starts to shrink again by growing.

I suspect that, again, Conservatives will not be able to understand that. Why are Conservatives so wrapped in reality when it only exists in nature and other things.

Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong

Correction, Hansen missed by 50%. He predicted a rise of 200% and the rise was 50% of that. Any derivative that attempts to retroactively apply predictions after compensating the flaw in his model cannot erase the flaw in his model. That flaw still exists, though.

The only reason we don't have similar results of current models predicting out to 2020 is that it's not 2020 yet. You'll notice that his "Scenario B" model assumes a GHG rate close to reality with a significantly higher prediction for temperature than is real. You'll also note that his "Scenario C" which assumes a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000 is the most accurate of his predictions vs. temperature measurements. However, no such "rapid decline" in GHGs occurred.

Causation is not proven in this model. That's my real interest by the way, that even if there is a problem and humans can solve it we need to know what to solve. So far increased GHGs don't seem to be the problem. Perhaps it's a factor, but what does it cost to find out and what if we are wrong? I know we can't solve this problem without money and as it turns out arbitrarily changing the economics of our world costs real money, money needed to solve other problems.

Meanwhile fresh drinking water is expensive, some areas are running out of it but we still flush toilets with it and let it run off our roofs instead of catching it. WTF?

Regarding how much Hansen missed by, what is 50% of 200%? I prefer to guage guesses by reality rather than the ohter way around, but, ultimately, the end result is the same. He missed by a bunch because his premise was wrong. Playing with what the numbers say when what they say is gibberish is exactly what Hansen is doing.

All that aside, though, it sounds as if we agree.

What does it cost to find out if we are wrong? Try sky rocketing unemployment as we abandon fossil fuels resulting in world wide famine and global economic collapse. If you're the Big 0, a small price to pay.