Global Warmists Preach Hunger, But Crops Just Grow And Grow

[ScienceRocks]

I thought Hansen was to warm??? Can you give me a link oldrocks.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Reality has shown a warming of our planet the last 2 hundred years. The model would be off if it didn't

A good model should have the physical equations of forcing of the co2.

Should it not???

The models ARE off -- and the IPCC admits it:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/328790-ipcc-admits-97-of-their-models-are-flawed.html

I'll also admit it. The science wasn't complete as the ocean heat transport system is a little more complex then we once thought.

97% wrong and you just flippantly say that the science wasn't complete? That the Earth's ecosystem is just a little, teensy-weensey bit more complex than we once thought?

Oh, my!

 

[daveman]

Fellow, Hansen's predictions have been spot on.

Ummm...nope.

Was ist eigentlich aus James Hansens Temperaturvorhersage von 1988 geworden? Zeit für eine Überprüfung | Die kalte Sonne

In this publication, Hansen and colleagues present the GISS model II, with which they simulate climate changes as a result of concentration changes of atmospheric trace gases and particulate matter (aerosols). The scientists make it three scenarios is:

A: increase in CO 2 emissions by 1.5% per annum
-B: constant increase in CO 2 emissions after the year 2000
-C: No increase in CO 2 emissions after the year 2000

The CO 2 emissions have increased since 2000 by about 2.5 percent per year, so we would expect according to the Hansen Paper a rise in temperature, which should be stronger than in model A. In Figure 1 , the three Hansen's scenarios and the real measured global temperature curve are shown. The above scenario A protruding arrow represents the temperature value that the Hansen team based on a CO 2 would have predicted increase of 2.5%. According to the Hansen forecast the temperature compared to the same level would have to be increased in the 1970s by 1.5 ° C. In truth, the temperature has, however, only increased by 0.6 ° C.

It can be seen that the modeled from the Hansen Group 1988 Temperature Forecast Next to it is by about 150%. It is extremely unfortunate that precisely this kind of modeling by our politicians is still regarded as a reliable climate prediction.​

 

[ScienceRocks]

I believe the oceans absorbed the energy and accounting for that Hansen was only slightly on the high side. ONLY because of emissions from ozone not getting as high as forecasted. This is what the total energy suggest.

This is what I read on skeptical science.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I believe the oceans absorbed the energy and accounting for that Hansen was only slightly on the high side. ONLY because of emissions from ozone not getting as high as forecasted. This is what the total energy suggest.

This is what I read on skeptical science.

"The dog ate global warming" sounds about as plausible.

 

[daveman]

I believe the oceans absorbed the energy and accounting for that Hansen was only slightly on the high side. ONLY because of emissions from ozone not getting as high as forecasted. This is what the total energy suggest.

This is what I read on skeptical science.

That means it's automatically bullshit. The name of the site itself is a lie.

 

[Kosh]

This lecture at a American Geophysical Union meeting addresses many of the topics discussed on this thread. Addresses them from the viewpoint of real scientists engaged in active research, not the rantings of politically driven whores.

Richard Alley | Hot Topic

Now that is no way to talk about the father of AGW James Hansen now is it?

Fellow, Hansen's predictions have been spot on. In the meantime, you who practice mindless denial and make fun of the real scientists have missed totally.

James Hansen is hack and has been way off base.

 

[Kosh]

I believe the oceans absorbed the energy and accounting for that Hansen was only slightly on the high side. ONLY because of emissions from ozone not getting as high as forecasted. This is what the total energy suggest.

This is what I read on skeptical science.

Slightly? No it was way off base unless.

James Hansen is a environmentalist wacko that tried to use "science" to further his agenda. He was hardly unbiased in his findings and thus shows that AGW is bunk.

 

[Old Rocks]

So Kosh, you like to lie. Not unusual for a denier.

What do we learn from James Hansen's 1988 prediction?

Hansen et al. (1988) used a global climate model to simulate the impact of variations in atmospheric greenhouse gases and aerosols on the global climate. Unable to predict future human greenhouse gas emissions or model every single possibility, Hansen chose 3 scenarios to model. Scenario A assumed continued exponential greenhouse gas growth. Scenario B assumed a reduced linear rate of growth, and Scenario C assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000.

Misrepresentations of Hansen's Projections
The 'Hansen was wrong' myth originated from testimony by scientist Pat Michaels before US House of Representatives in which he claimed "Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted....The forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure."

This is an astonishingly false statement to make, particularly before the US Congress. It was also reproduced in Michael Crichton's science fiction novel State of Fear, which featured a scientist claiming that Hansen's 1988 projections were "overestimated by 300 percent." Moreover, Michaels has continued to defend this indefensible distortion.

 

[daveman]

Hansen was wrong. There is no way to credibly deny this.