Wrong Again: 2020’s Failed Climate Doomsaying

[ReinyDays]

Can any of the Warmers explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the deep oceans?

Conduction ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can any of the Warmers explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the deep oceans?

Conduction ...

Lol!!

No, really.

 

[alpine]

because it successfully predicted a warming planet, despite all the denial from folks like yourself...
same folks now accept a warming planet but argue on the degree of it...

ignorance is a bliss...
up until you have to pay the price for it of course...

just like how it worked in the case of covid;
anti-science lunatics first ignored it...
then played it down by claiming it would burn out by may...
then claimed it would not be anything more than a flu...
now blaming the people who warned them of the big catastrophe they caused by their ignorance to begin with...

same timeline will follow for the climate change...

So you haven't read the scientific paper ... I see ... so your claims as to what it said are based on ignorance ... if the predictions were correct in 1988, why does The Guardian have to correct them in 2017? ... The Guardian article is so screwed up, they actually deleted the link to the paper ... I had to hunt down the abstract ... something you apparently cannot do for yourself ... commercial media leading you by your nose ring ... not a clue about what " 10º x 8º " means ... sad ...

I recognized the dangers of SARS back in 2004 ... where have you been? ...

so what you are saying is: the planet is not warming up...
that must be what you are claiming if you are refuting a study that suggests exactly that...

you probably dont even have a clue what you are arguing, do you...

sars ha...
you predicted the covid would burn out by may...
you predicted it was not gonna be as bad as flu...

how are those predictions holding out for you...

and now you expect people to believe your ill predictions about the climate...

actually wait...
you dont have any predictions, do you...

You can try to deflect ... but the question remains ... did you notice the link in your article is broken? ... obviously not ... you're just repeating someone else's ignorance ...

I haven't been making any predictions about SARS ... more ignorance on your part ... I'm waiting for the science to be published ...

i dont need a link to the study...
i already know what it says...
why should i click on a link to a study i already know the context of...
and what does a broken link have to do with anything regarding a warming planet...
you have nothing other than your fantasies about some broken links and sars virus, which is irrelevant to anything you are trying to argue here...

call me when you have anything other than more of your brain farce...

 

[Sunsettommy]

because it successfully predicted a warming planet, despite all the denial from folks like yourself...
same folks now accept a warming planet but argue on the degree of it...

ignorance is a bliss...
up until you have to pay the price for it of course...

just like how it worked in the case of covid;
anti-science lunatics first ignored it...
then played it down by claiming it would burn out by may...
then claimed it would not be anything more than a flu...
now blaming the people who warned them of the big catastrophe they caused by their ignorance to begin with...

same timeline will follow for the climate change...

So you haven't read the scientific paper ... I see ... so your claims as to what it said are based on ignorance ... if the predictions were correct in 1988, why does The Guardian have to correct them in 2017? ... The Guardian article is so screwed up, they actually deleted the link to the paper ... I had to hunt down the abstract ... something you apparently cannot do for yourself ... commercial media leading you by your nose ring ... not a clue about what " 10º x 8º " means ... sad ...

I recognized the dangers of SARS back in 2004 ... where have you been? ...

so what you are saying is: the planet is not warming up...
that must be what you are claiming if you are refuting a study that suggests exactly that...

you probably dont even have a clue what you are arguing, do you...

sars ha...
you predicted the covid would burn out by may...
you predicted it was not gonna be as bad as flu...

how are those predictions holding out for you...

and now you expect people to believe your ill predictions about the climate...

actually wait...
you dont have any predictions, do you...

You can try to deflect ... but the question remains ... did you notice the link in your article is broken? ... obviously not ... you're just repeating someone else's ignorance ...

I haven't been making any predictions about SARS ... more ignorance on your part ... I'm waiting for the science to be published ...

There are TWO broken links, the 1988 Senate Testimony and his 1988 3 modeling scenario paper he presented there. It is why I posted the chart and description for it, to show what was presented at the time.

They are using Scenario B, which is hilarious because this is what Hansen states:

scenario B has emission rates approximately fixed at current rates; scenario

But that was based on the 1988 CO2 emission rate (CURRENT Fixed rate) But it has been increasing at a higher rate for 32 years. From MY LINK


I was interested in “Scenario A”, which Hansen defined as what would happen assuming “continued growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the past 20 years, i.e., about 1.5% yr-1“.

To see how well Scenario A fits the period after 1987, which is when Hansen’s observational data ends, I took a look at the rate of growth of CO2 emissions since 1987. Figure 2 shows that graph.

It obviously increased over the years at a HIGHER rate than in the "fixed" 1988 emission rate, scenario B has emission rates approximately fixed at current rates; scenario....

Scenario B claims used by dishonest warmists/alarmists the world over is a false trail, not applicable at all to the evolving CO2 emission rate over the years.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Can any of the Warmers explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the deep oceans?

Conduction ...

Lol!!

No, really.

He leaves out convection process of water vapor... from a water surface.....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So a 1C increase in the atmosphere due to CO2 (lol) will increase temperatures 600m down in the ocean the same 1C?

 

[Sunsettommy]

because it successfully predicted a warming planet, despite all the denial from folks like yourself...
same folks now accept a warming planet but argue on the degree of it...

ignorance is a bliss...
up until you have to pay the price for it of course...

just like how it worked in the case of covid;
anti-science lunatics first ignored it...
then played it down by claiming it would burn out by may...
then claimed it would not be anything more than a flu...
now blaming the people who warned them of the big catastrophe they caused by their ignorance to begin with...

same timeline will follow for the climate change...

So you haven't read the scientific paper ... I see ... so your claims as to what it said are based on ignorance ... if the predictions were correct in 1988, why does The Guardian have to correct them in 2017? ... The Guardian article is so screwed up, they actually deleted the link to the paper ... I had to hunt down the abstract ... something you apparently cannot do for yourself ... commercial media leading you by your nose ring ... not a clue about what " 10º x 8º " means ... sad ...

I recognized the dangers of SARS back in 2004 ... where have you been? ...

so what you are saying is: the planet is not warming up...
that must be what you are claiming if you are refuting a study that suggests exactly that...

you probably dont even have a clue what you are arguing, do you...

sars ha...
you predicted the covid would burn out by may...
you predicted it was not gonna be as bad as flu...

how are those predictions holding out for you...

and now you expect people to believe your ill predictions about the climate...

actually wait...
you dont have any predictions, do you...

You can try to deflect ... but the question remains ... did you notice the link in your article is broken? ... obviously not ... you're just repeating someone else's ignorance ...

I haven't been making any predictions about SARS ... more ignorance on your part ... I'm waiting for the science to be published ...

i dont need a link to the study...
i already know what it says...
why should i click on a link to a study i already know the context of...
and what does a broken link have to do with anything regarding a warming planet...
you have nothing other than your fantasies about some broken links and sars virus, which is irrelevant to anything you are trying to argue here...

call me when you have anything other than more of your brain farce...

But somehow you are so unable to answer anything in some detail or address what has been presented to you, you are avoiding real debate, just deflect, deflect and more deflect. It is clear you have nothing cogent to say here at all.

He is right about you, you have NEVER seen Dr, Hansen's 1988 3 modeling scenario paper, the question needs to be asked, why are you here making a fool of yourself?

 

[alpine]

because it successfully predicted a warming planet, despite all the denial from folks like yourself...
same folks now accept a warming planet but argue on the degree of it...

ignorance is a bliss...
up until you have to pay the price for it of course...

just like how it worked in the case of covid;
anti-science lunatics first ignored it...
then played it down by claiming it would burn out by may...
then claimed it would not be anything more than a flu...
now blaming the people who warned them of the big catastrophe they caused by their ignorance to begin with...

same timeline will follow for the climate change...

So you haven't read the scientific paper ... I see ... so your claims as to what it said are based on ignorance ... if the predictions were correct in 1988, why does The Guardian have to correct them in 2017? ... The Guardian article is so screwed up, they actually deleted the link to the paper ... I had to hunt down the abstract ... something you apparently cannot do for yourself ... commercial media leading you by your nose ring ... not a clue about what " 10º x 8º " means ... sad ...

I recognized the dangers of SARS back in 2004 ... where have you been? ...

so what you are saying is: the planet is not warming up...
that must be what you are claiming if you are refuting a study that suggests exactly that...

you probably dont even have a clue what you are arguing, do you...

sars ha...
you predicted the covid would burn out by may...
you predicted it was not gonna be as bad as flu...

how are those predictions holding out for you...

and now you expect people to believe your ill predictions about the climate...

actually wait...
you dont have any predictions, do you...

You can try to deflect ... but the question remains ... did you notice the link in your article is broken? ... obviously not ... you're just repeating someone else's ignorance ...

I haven't been making any predictions about SARS ... more ignorance on your part ... I'm waiting for the science to be published ...

There are TWO broken links, the 1988 Senate Testimony and his 1988 3 modeling scenario paper he presented there. It is why I posted the chart and description for it, to show what was presented at the time.

They are using Scenario B, which is hilarious because this is what Hansen states:

scenario B has emission rates approximately fixed at current rates; scenario

But that was based on the 1988 CO2 emission rate (CURRENT Fixed rate) But it has been increasing at a higher rate for 32 years. From MY LINK


I was interested in “Scenario A”, which Hansen defined as what would happen assuming “continued growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the past 20 years, i.e., about 1.5% yr-1“.

To see how well Scenario A fits the period after 1987, which is when Hansen’s observational data ends, I took a look at the rate of growth of CO2 emissions since 1987. Figure 2 shows that graph.

View attachment 431180

It obvious increased over the years at a HIGHER rate than in the "fixed" 1988 emission rate, scenario B has emission rates approximately fixed at current rates; scenario....

Scenario B claims used by dishonest warmists/alarmists the world over is a false trail, not applicable at all to the evolving CO2 emission rate over the years.

and yet the globe keeps warming up... setting new records in tempereatures...

and you morons still argue about some broken links...

 

[alpine]

because it successfully predicted a warming planet, despite all the denial from folks like yourself...
same folks now accept a warming planet but argue on the degree of it...

ignorance is a bliss...
up until you have to pay the price for it of course...

just like how it worked in the case of covid;
anti-science lunatics first ignored it...
then played it down by claiming it would burn out by may...
then claimed it would not be anything more than a flu...
now blaming the people who warned them of the big catastrophe they caused by their ignorance to begin with...

same timeline will follow for the climate change...

So you haven't read the scientific paper ... I see ... so your claims as to what it said are based on ignorance ... if the predictions were correct in 1988, why does The Guardian have to correct them in 2017? ... The Guardian article is so screwed up, they actually deleted the link to the paper ... I had to hunt down the abstract ... something you apparently cannot do for yourself ... commercial media leading you by your nose ring ... not a clue about what " 10º x 8º " means ... sad ...

I recognized the dangers of SARS back in 2004 ... where have you been? ...

so what you are saying is: the planet is not warming up...
that must be what you are claiming if you are refuting a study that suggests exactly that...

you probably dont even have a clue what you are arguing, do you...

sars ha...
you predicted the covid would burn out by may...
you predicted it was not gonna be as bad as flu...

how are those predictions holding out for you...

and now you expect people to believe your ill predictions about the climate...

actually wait...
you dont have any predictions, do you...

You can try to deflect ... but the question remains ... did you notice the link in your article is broken? ... obviously not ... you're just repeating someone else's ignorance ...

I haven't been making any predictions about SARS ... more ignorance on your part ... I'm waiting for the science to be published ...

i dont need a link to the study...
i already know what it says...
why should i click on a link to a study i already know the context of...
and what does a broken link have to do with anything regarding a warming planet...
you have nothing other than your fantasies about some broken links and sars virus, which is irrelevant to anything you are trying to argue here...

call me when you have anything other than more of your brain farce...

But somehow you are so unable to answer anything in some detail or address what has been presented to you, you are avoiding real debate, just deflect, deflect and more deflect. It is clear you have nothing cogent to say here at all.

He is right about you, you have NEVER seen Dr, Hansen's 1988 3 modeling scenario paper, the question needs to be asked, why are you here making a fool of yourself?

is the planet warming...
yes or no...
should be easy answer for you...

 

[ReinyDays]

Lol!!
No, really.

Really really ... the radiative transfer of energy is measured in millimeters in liquid water ... thermal convection is completely inhibited ... that leaves only conduction of energy down the water column ...

This takes a very very long time ... and isn't usually considered in our atmospheric energy budgets ... best guess is 0.1 W/m^2 upwelling energy from Earth's interior ... trivial compared to the 250 W/m^2 total outbound energy at top-of-atmosphere ...

We can safely ignore the deep ocean's temperature rise in our 100 year time intervals, probably our 1,000 year intervals ... hard to say ... extremely difficult to measure over large volumes in real time ...

 

[ReinyDays]

i dont need a link to the study...
i already know what it says...
why should i click on a link to a study i already know the context of...
and what does a broken link have to do with anything regarding a warming planet...
you have nothing other than your fantasies about some broken links and sars virus, which is irrelevant to anything you are trying to argue here...

call me when you have anything other than more of your brain farce...

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

Tell us oh Great One ... why the 10º x 8º unit volume? ... you haven't read the paper, you have no idea what it says ... you're just vomiting the spew you've eaten ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

because it successfully predicted a warming planet, despite all the denial from folks like yourself...
same folks now accept a warming planet but argue on the degree of it...

ignorance is a bliss...
up until you have to pay the price for it of course...

just like how it worked in the case of covid;
anti-science lunatics first ignored it...
then played it down by claiming it would burn out by may...
then claimed it would not be anything more than a flu...
now blaming the people who warned them of the big catastrophe they caused by their ignorance to begin with...

same timeline will follow for the climate change...

So you haven't read the scientific paper ... I see ... so your claims as to what it said are based on ignorance ... if the predictions were correct in 1988, why does The Guardian have to correct them in 2017? ... The Guardian article is so screwed up, they actually deleted the link to the paper ... I had to hunt down the abstract ... something you apparently cannot do for yourself ... commercial media leading you by your nose ring ... not a clue about what " 10º x 8º " means ... sad ...

I recognized the dangers of SARS back in 2004 ... where have you been? ...

so what you are saying is: the planet is not warming up...
that must be what you are claiming if you are refuting a study that suggests exactly that...

you probably dont even have a clue what you are arguing, do you...

sars ha...
you predicted the covid would burn out by may...
you predicted it was not gonna be as bad as flu...

how are those predictions holding out for you...

and now you expect people to believe your ill predictions about the climate...

actually wait...
you dont have any predictions, do you...

You can try to deflect ... but the question remains ... did you notice the link in your article is broken? ... obviously not ... you're just repeating someone else's ignorance ...

I haven't been making any predictions about SARS ... more ignorance on your part ... I'm waiting for the science to be published ...

i dont need a link to the study...
i already know what it says...
why should i click on a link to a study i already know the context of...
and what does a broken link have to do with anything regarding a warming planet...
you have nothing other than your fantasies about some broken links and sars virus, which is irrelevant to anything you are trying to argue here...

call me when you have anything other than more of your brain farce...

But somehow you are so unable to answer anything in some detail or address what has been presented to you, you are avoiding real debate, just deflect, deflect and more deflect. It is clear you have nothing cogent to say here at all.

He is right about you, you have NEVER seen Dr, Hansen's 1988 3 modeling scenario paper, the question needs to be asked, why are you here making a fool of yourself?

is the planet warming...
yes or no...
should be easy answer for you...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Your abject stupidity is on display since NO ONE HERE disputes the warming trend, it is about how poor modeling predictions have fared since 1988, you don't want to discuss it, just deflect away from it with low IQ gibberish, you don't even read YOUR own link you posted, the broken links in it are deliberately done to HIDE Dr. Hansen's miserable 1988 modeling failure.

From MY LINK you never read is this chart showing that the author of the article of post one agrees with this warming trend:

Figure 3. The line marked “Observations” in Hansen’s graph shown as Figure 1 above, along with modern temperature estimates. All data is expressed as anomalies about the 1951-1980 mean temperature.

OK, so now we have established that:

• Hansen’s “Scenario A” estimate of future growth in CO2 emissions was close, albeit a bit low, and

• Hansen’s historical temperature observations agree reasonably well with modern estimates.

=====

You are one lazy warmist/alarmist twit!

 

[Sunsettommy]

because it successfully predicted a warming planet, despite all the denial from folks like yourself...
same folks now accept a warming planet but argue on the degree of it...

ignorance is a bliss...
up until you have to pay the price for it of course...

just like how it worked in the case of covid;
anti-science lunatics first ignored it...
then played it down by claiming it would burn out by may...
then claimed it would not be anything more than a flu...
now blaming the people who warned them of the big catastrophe they caused by their ignorance to begin with...

same timeline will follow for the climate change...

So you haven't read the scientific paper ... I see ... so your claims as to what it said are based on ignorance ... if the predictions were correct in 1988, why does The Guardian have to correct them in 2017? ... The Guardian article is so screwed up, they actually deleted the link to the paper ... I had to hunt down the abstract ... something you apparently cannot do for yourself ... commercial media leading you by your nose ring ... not a clue about what " 10º x 8º " means ... sad ...

I recognized the dangers of SARS back in 2004 ... where have you been? ...

so what you are saying is: the planet is not warming up...
that must be what you are claiming if you are refuting a study that suggests exactly that...

you probably dont even have a clue what you are arguing, do you...

sars ha...
you predicted the covid would burn out by may...
you predicted it was not gonna be as bad as flu...

how are those predictions holding out for you...

and now you expect people to believe your ill predictions about the climate...

actually wait...
you dont have any predictions, do you...

You can try to deflect ... but the question remains ... did you notice the link in your article is broken? ... obviously not ... you're just repeating someone else's ignorance ...

I haven't been making any predictions about SARS ... more ignorance on your part ... I'm waiting for the science to be published ...

i dont need a link to the study...
i already know what it says...
why should i click on a link to a study i already know the context of...
and what does a broken link have to do with anything regarding a warming planet...
you have nothing other than your fantasies about some broken links and sars virus, which is irrelevant to anything you are trying to argue here...

call me when you have anything other than more of your brain farce...

But somehow you are so unable to answer anything in some detail or address what has been presented to you, you are avoiding real debate, just deflect, deflect and more deflect. It is clear you have nothing cogent to say here at all.

He is right about you, you have NEVER seen Dr, Hansen's 1988 3 modeling scenario paper, the question needs to be asked, why are you here making a fool of yourself?

is the planet warming...
yes or no...
should be easy answer for you...

I already stated this back on page one of this thread at post 3

I haven't disputed a warming trend, what make you think otherwise?

You never answered it, but around 35 minutes later you make this dead on arrival post...., indicating you either ignored the post or have a memory hole in your science literacy free Swiss cheese head.

Normally I don't post like this, but you deserve to be exposed as the idiot climate ideologist you are, with no desire to carry on a mature conversation over the topic.

 

[Pete7469]

Repeated some insipid agitprop.

 

[alpine]

I already stated this back on page one of this thread at post 3

I haven't disputed a warming trend, what make you think otherwise?

ok, lets go to the original point then...

denial of the stupid:
in the beginning: "what warming, you guys are delusional..."
10 years later: "ahhh, that warming, pfff, thats not man made, its normal..."
another 10 years: "ahh ok, we may have an impact on it but not that much, cmon..."

now you can brain fart as much as you like and that other guy can smell it as much as he likes...

 

[Sunsettommy]

I already stated this back on page one of this thread at post 3

I haven't disputed a warming trend, what make you think otherwise?

ok, lets go to the original point then...

denial of the stupid:
in the beginning: "what warming, you guys are delusional..."
10 years later: "ahhh, that warming, pfff, thats not man made, its normal..."
another 10 years: "ahh ok, we may have an impact on it but not that much, cmon..."

now you can brain fart as much as you like and that other guy can smell it as much as he likes...

LOL,

you again avoided a post 32 refuting your "is it warming or not" crap, as I showed that myself the author and ReinyDays NEVER disputed the warming trend. Told you at post 3 this, which you failed to learn:

I haven't disputed a warming trend, what make you think otherwise?

Your Strawman fallacy argument is boring and stupid. It doesn't pertain to the threads topic at all, which is about Prediction/projection failures, that were made many years ago.

You ran off to a pile of shit Guardian article (post 2) about Hansen's 1988 modeling scenarios as being very close to the temperature range, yet they used Scenario B, which is stupid as hell since that is based on NO more CO2 emission increase from 1988 onwards, as shown here:

scenario B has emission rates approximately fixed at current rates

In post 16, I posted this:

1. [Scenario A assumes continued growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the past 20 years, i.e., about 1.5% yr^-1 emission growth;

That means from 1968-1988 time frame, but anyone who bother to pay attention as the author did in post 16 showed:

Emissions grew upward at a greater rate than 1.5% since 1988, it was shown to be 1.9%.from 1988 to 2017. Since Scenario A is the ONLY scenario that allowed for CO2 growth into the future (from 1988) of the three he posted, it is the ONLY one to examine critically, the other two are not worth examining anymore since there is ZERO to reduction of CO2 emissions in them.

Scenario A modeling is a big failure:

It is obvious that Dr. Hansen's 1988 3 modeling scenarios are 100% failures.

You are stupid as shit,

 

[alpine]

I already stated this back on page one of this thread at post 3

I haven't disputed a warming trend, what make you think otherwise?

ok, lets go to the original point then...

denial of the stupid:
in the beginning: "what warming, you guys are delusional..."
10 years later: "ahhh, that warming, pfff, thats not man made, its normal..."
another 10 years: "ahh ok, we may have an impact on it but not that much, cmon..."

now you can brain fart as much as you like and that other guy can smell it as much as he likes...

LOL,

you again avoided a post 32 refuting your "is it warming or not" crap, as I showed that myself the author and ReinyDays NEVER disputed the warming trend. Told you at post 3 this, which you failed to learn:

I haven't disputed a warming trend, what make you think otherwise?

Your Strawman fallacy argument is boring and stupid. It doesn't pertain to the threads topic at all, which is about Prediction/projection failures, that were made many years ago.

You ran off to a pile of shit Guardian article (post 2) about Hansen's 1988 modeling scenarios as being very close to the temperature range, yet they used Scenario B, which is stupid as hell since that is based on NO more CO2 emission increase from 1988 onwards, as shown here:

scenario B has emission rates approximately fixed at current rates

In post 16, I posted this:

1. [Scenario A assumes continued growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the past 20 years, i.e., about 1.5% yr^-1 emission growth;

That means from 1968-1988 time frame, but anyone who bother to pay attention as the author did in post 16 showed:

View attachment 431376

Emissions grew upward at a greater rate than 1.5% since 1988, it was shown to be 1.9%.from 1988 to 2017. Since Scenario A is the ONLY scenario that allowed for CO2 growth into the future (from 1988) of the three he posted, it is the ONLY one to examine critically, the other two are not worth examining anymore since there is ZERO to reduction of CO2 emissions in them.

Scenario A modeling is a big failure:

View attachment 431381

It is obvious that Dr. Hansen's 1988 3 modeling scenarios are 100% failures.

You are stupid as shit,

good thing you are at the 2nd stage already...
i am glad for you...
i know plenty of morons still couldnt make it this far...

3rd stage will be when you admit the co2 is the main cause of the warming trend and humans controlling emissions will allow the climate extremes stay in our comfort zone...

and let me know when you get there...

 

[Turtlesoup]

30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansenâs amazing global warming prediction | Dana Nuccitelli

Dana Nuccitelli: Koch paychecks seem to be strong motivators to lie

www.theguardian.com

no credible scientist predicts a single number for a 2 decade span, neither did hansen...
he had 3 models low/mid/high and they were beyond accurate, predicted everything as they happened...

clueless climate retards however take one number out of its context and try to hide their stupidity behind it...

you can lie as much as you like, but the fact is that you cant lie against a warming globe anymore and thats a tell for anyone interested in the subject beyond politics and ignorance surrounding it...

How can anyone be "wrong" in your mind then if have multiple models?

 

[alpine]

30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansenâs amazing global warming prediction | Dana Nuccitelli

Dana Nuccitelli: Koch paychecks seem to be strong motivators to lie

www.theguardian.com

no credible scientist predicts a single number for a 2 decade span, neither did hansen...
he had 3 models low/mid/high and they were beyond accurate, predicted everything as they happened...

clueless climate retards however take one number out of its context and try to hide their stupidity behind it...

you can lie as much as you like, but the fact is that you cant lie against a warming globe anymore and thats a tell for anyone interested in the subject beyond politics and ignorance surrounding it...

How can anyone be "wrong" in your mind then if have multiple models?

try to put words that mean something together in a sentence next time you try...

 

[Sunsettommy]

I already stated this back on page one of this thread at post 3

I haven't disputed a warming trend, what make you think otherwise?

ok, lets go to the original point then...

denial of the stupid:
in the beginning: "what warming, you guys are delusional..."
10 years later: "ahhh, that warming, pfff, thats not man made, its normal..."
another 10 years: "ahh ok, we may have an impact on it but not that much, cmon..."

now you can brain fart as much as you like and that other guy can smell it as much as he likes...

LOL,

you again avoided a post 32 refuting your "is it warming or not" crap, as I showed that myself the author and ReinyDays NEVER disputed the warming trend. Told you at post 3 this, which you failed to learn:

I haven't disputed a warming trend, what make you think otherwise?

Your Strawman fallacy argument is boring and stupid. It doesn't pertain to the threads topic at all, which is about Prediction/projection failures, that were made many years ago.

You ran off to a pile of shit Guardian article (post 2) about Hansen's 1988 modeling scenarios as being very close to the temperature range, yet they used Scenario B, which is stupid as hell since that is based on NO more CO2 emission increase from 1988 onwards, as shown here:

scenario B has emission rates approximately fixed at current rates

In post 16, I posted this:

1. [Scenario A assumes continued growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the past 20 years, i.e., about 1.5% yr^-1 emission growth;

That means from 1968-1988 time frame, but anyone who bother to pay attention as the author did in post 16 showed:

View attachment 431376

Emissions grew upward at a greater rate than 1.5% since 1988, it was shown to be 1.9%.from 1988 to 2017. Since Scenario A is the ONLY scenario that allowed for CO2 growth into the future (from 1988) of the three he posted, it is the ONLY one to examine critically, the other two are not worth examining anymore since there is ZERO to reduction of CO2 emissions in them.

Scenario A modeling is a big failure:

View attachment 431381

It is obvious that Dr. Hansen's 1988 3 modeling scenarios are 100% failures.

You are stupid as shit,

good thing you are at the 2nd stage already...
i am glad for you...
i know plenty of morons still couldnt make it this far...

3rd stage will be when you admit the co2 is the main cause of the warming trend and humans controlling emissions will allow the climate extremes stay in our comfort zone...

and let me know when you get there...

Ha ha ha, you are making a total fool of yourself here, not even trying to defend the indefensible of your foolish dead on arrival Guardian bullshit anymore since YOU know you can't address the details of my postings, since it zooms waaaaay over your science illiterate brain.

Thank you for your hilarious capitulation.

Cheers.