Absolutely correct - the models look absolutely fabulous in predicting what's going to happen - All those pretty colours... and you can't prove them wrong! [You know - coz it hasn't happened yet DOH]



Tim... TIM? Did you use those models again?

You guys all know that Hansen's predictions from 1981 (using a simple 1-D model) have proven to be rather accurate don't you?

Only in your mind...

Did you know that Hansen also predicted New York to be flooded about now?

That's an urban myth that is trotted out by sceptics on a regular basis.

Hansen's actual prediction is Broadway under water in 2028, the 40 year mark from 1988, and also when and if we reach 560 ppm CO2 (a doubling from pre-industrial levels).

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf

Warming experiments underpredict plant phenological responses to climate change

Warming experiments are increasingly relied on to estimate plant responses to global climate change1, 2. For experiments to provide meaningful predictions of future responses, they should reflect the empirical record of responses to temperature variability and recent warming, including advances in the timing of flowering and leafing3, 4, 5. We compared phenology (the timing of recurring life history events) in observational studies and warming experiments spanning four continents and 1,634 plant species using a common measure of temperature sensitivity (change in days per degree Celsius). We show that warming experiments underpredict advances in the timing of flowering and leafing by 8.5-fold and 4.0-fold, respectively, compared with long-term observations. For species that were common to both study types, the experimental results did not match the observational data in sign or magnitude. The observational data also showed that species that flower earliest in the spring have the highest temperature sensitivities, but this trend was not reflected in the experimental data. These significant mismatches seem to be unrelated to the study length or to the degree of manipulated warming in experiments. The discrepancy between experiments and observations, however, could arise from complex interactions among multiple drivers in the observational data, or it could arise from remediable artefacts in the experiments that result in lower irradiance and drier soils, thus dampening the phenological responses to manipulated warming. Our results introduce uncertainty into ecosystem models that are informed solely by experiments and suggest that responses to climate change that are predicted using such models should be re-evaluated.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7399/full/nature11014.html

You know full well that the quote was "in 20 years" Here it is:
http://www.salon.com/2001/10/23/weather/

This was the question:


And to reinforce:




As usual you and yours are changing history to suit.

As usual sceptics ignore the true facts of the story.

Here's Hansen setting the story straight for once and for all.

-----------

Michaels also has the facts wrong about a 1988 interview of me by Bob Reiss, in which Reiss asked me to
speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount.

Michaels has it as 20 years, not 40 years, with no mention of doubled CO2.

Reiss verified this fact to me, but he later sent the message: "I went back to my book and re-read the interview I had with you. I am embarrassed to say that although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years.

What I asked you originally at your office window was for a prediction of what Broadway would look like in 40 years, not 20.

But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later - probably because I'd been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question." So give Michaels a pass on this one -- assume that he reads Salon, but he did not check the original source, Reiss' book.

link

------------

There it is in black and white. Now will sceptics stop quoting from the Salon article and take Hansen's and Riess's word on the real facts?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=345

Oh my profound apologies then. Just like Gleick, Hansen said he Is inocent - so there. And we all know that skepsci is a paragon of truth...

What do you reckon will be his excuse in 15 years time? That is given we are to expect at about 2-3 metres os sea level rise by then?

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/05/23/deal-with-climate-reality-as-it-unfolds/

Policymakers have quietly given up trying to cut ­carbon dioxide emissions

By Bob Carter

Over the last 18 months, policymakers in Canada, the U.S. and Japan have quietly abandoned the illusory goal of preventing global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Instead, an alternative view has emerged regarding the most cost-effective way in which to deal with the undoubted hazards of climate change.

This view points toward setting a policy of preparation for, and adaptation to, climatic events and change as they occur, which is distinctly different from the former emphasis given by most Western parliaments to the mitigation of global warming by curbing carbon dioxide emissions.

Ultimately, the rationale for choosing between policies of mitigation or adaptation must lie with an analysis of the underlying scientific evidence about climate change. Yet the vigorous public debate over possibly dangerous human-caused global warming is bedevilled by two things.

First, an inadequacy of the historical temperature measurements that are used to reconstruct the average global temperature statistic.

And, second, fuelled by lobbyists and media interests, an unfortunate tribal emotionalism that has arisen between groups of persons who are depicted as either climate “alarmists” or climate “deniers.”

In reality, the great majority of working scientists fit into neither category. All competent scientists accept, first, that global climate has always changed, and always will; second, that human activities (not just carbon dioxide emissions) definitely affect local climate, and have the potential, summed, to measurably affect global climate; and, third, that carbon dioxide is a mild greenhouse gas.

The true scientific debate, then, is about none of these issues, but rather about the sign and magnitude of any global human effect and its likely significance when considered in the context of natural climate change.

For many different reasons, which include various types of bias, error and unaccounted-for artifacts, the thermometer record provides only an indicative history of average global temperature over the last 150 years.

The 1979-2011 satellite MSU (Microwave Sounding Units) record is our only acceptably accurate estimate of average global temperature, yet being but 32 years in length it represents just one climate data point. The second most reliable estimate of global temperature, collected by radiosondes on weather balloons, extends back to 1958, and the portion that overlaps with the MSU record matches it well.

Taken together, these two temperature records indicate that no significant warming trend has occurred since 1958, though both exhibit a 0.2C step increase in average global temperature across the strong 1998 El Nino.

In addition, the recently quiet Sun, and the lack of warming over at least the last 15 years — and that despite a 10% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide level, which represents 34% of all post-industrial emissions — indicates that the alarmist global warming hypothesis is wrong and that cooling may be the greatest climate hazard over coming decades.

Climate change takes place over geological time scales of thousands through millions of years, but unfortunately the relevant geological data sets do not provide direct measurements, least of all of average global temperature.

Instead, they comprise local or regional proxy records of climate change of varying quality. Nonetheless, numerous high-quality paleoclimate records, and especially those from ice cores and deep-sea mud cores, demonstrate that no unusual or untoward changes in climate occurred in the 20th and early 21st century.

Despite an estimated spend of well over $100-billion since 1990 looking for a human global temperature signal, assessed against geological reality no compelling empirical evidence yet exists for a measurable, let alone worrisome, human impact on global temperature.

Nonetheless, a key issue on which all scientists agree is that natural climate-related events and change are real, and exact very real human and environmental costs. These hazards include storms, floods, blizzards, droughts and bushfires, as well as both local and global temperature steps and longer term cooling or warming trends.

It is certain that these natural climate-related events and change will continue, and that from time to time human and environmental damage will be wrought.

Extreme weather events (and their consequences) are natural disasters of similar character to earthquakes, tsunami and volcanic eruptions, in that in our present state of knowledge they can neither be predicted far ahead nor prevented once underway. The matter of dealing with future climate change, therefore, is primarily one of risk appraisal and minimization, and that for natural risks that vary from place to place around the globe.

Dealing with climate reality as it unfolds clearly represents the most prudent, practical and cost-effective solution to the climate change issue. Importantly, a policy of adaptation is also strongly precautionary against any (possibly dangerous) human-caused climate trends that might emerge in the future.

Financial Post
Bob Carter, a paleoclimatologist at James Cook University, Australia, and a chief science advisor for the International Climate Science Coalition, is in Canada on a 10-day tour. He speaks at Carleton University in Ottawa on Friday.


From an article on WUWT. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/24/bob-carters-essay-in-fp-policymakers-have-quietly-given-up-trying-to-cut-%c2%adcarbon-dioxide-emissions/#more-64203

There's many inaccuracies with that opinion piece by Carter.

First of all is his incorrect claim that Canada has abandoned the goal of preventing global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

This is the latest policy on reducing CO2 by Canada.



http://www.canada.com/business/Canada+pl...l#ixzz1vpjFzRzy

In the United States, the State and regional policy is to reduce CO2 emmisions.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_the_United_States#State_and_regional_policy

I don't make this stuff up CeeBee, I just post the articles. It was an essay and it reflects current Canadian Policy, not doctrine.

Sure, and if the article is inaccurate then it is worth pointing out those inaccuracies.

The article is an opinion piece written by Bob Carter - it is not reflective of Canadian Policy at all, as is made clear by the article I posted.

And, there are many many accuracies from mr Bob Carter also, but, CB of course U would never mention those!

How about his claim that "no significant warming trend has occurred since 1958"

Talk about being inaccurate! How anyone can possibly take him seriously after such a huge blunder like that is beyond me!



Check out the warming trend since 1958!

Either that or Hanson went back through his a_ _ e!!! Which is what he will have to do more and more into the future....

Check out the warming trend from around 1800??

He is talking about radiosonde records. It seems that you just love to nit pick and run down everything CB. Lets have a bit of less one eyed approach please. Would be nice, but I don't think so unfortunately. Ah well takes all to make the world! Cheers

Here's the radiosonde temperature graph. There is a clear warming trend since 1958.



I accept that I do find many faults with the opinions and blog science of sceptics BD. I wish it weren't so...

I think that BD’s absolutely right

Here is Carter’s quote which you misconstrued:



Here are the radiosonde records and the MSU channels.


If you note that at the start of the record, the temp anomaly was -0.2C, and right now it is +0.2C. That being the case then indeed (allowing for the volcanos in the 60’s like Agung etc which have now been adjusted out of the surface record) there is some justification in suggesting that a .4C change over 55 years is not a significant warming trend…

Particularly if the radiosonde trend in 1958 was a decreasing one:

A New Look at Radiosonde Data prior to 1958

For those interested – this is a good discussion of the ins and outs of MSU and radiosonde measurements:
http://www.scottchurchdirect.com/global-warming.aspx/troposphere-temperature-trends-pt1

Found what I was looking for:



These can be compared to the MSU temps and give validity to Carter's comments. [Data from Hadley]