Now I found the article entertaining becuase they just waved away Hansen's glaring overestimation and the failure of the model. If I formed a model with MANY variables in it, and the model failed, I would certainly be able to find one variable that I could adjust to the old model to make it close to the truth. This would not show my model was correct. My model may still be entirely off for predicting the future.
That is to say, I could completely fail at predicting the stock market based upon how 20 professional teams in differing sports did. BUT, I could find some variable that I could adjust and get to the right answer. This in no way means that my new model will work for predicting the future of the stock market.
But, lets assume for a moment that they are on the right track. They are dealing with ONLY the most important variable, so maybe they are right.
Here is the thing. Their models do not properly account for the 62 year-cycle found in the data. They came up with the model while the cycle was on the incline. They found out it is overestimating when the cycle plateaued. The cycle is now on the decline. It seems to me that this would inherently mean that they are still overestimating the effect of CO2 doubling with their 3 degree estimate.
This just further supports my view that a doubling of CO2 causes 2 degrees of warming, NOT 3. This means we have time to allow the technology for renewable resources to develop naturally (with slight help) without harming our economy with unnecessary taxes and panic-induced non-solutions. We also have time toget nuclear power up and running.
On June 11, 1986, Jimmy said:
"Hansen said the average U.S. temperature had risen from one to two degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020."
“Within 15 years, global temperatures will rise to a level which hasn’t existed on earth for 100,000 years”.
That is one of the problems when political hacks make predictions to push their cause. The time period they provide comes and goes and then they have to redraw the lines in the sand and say the same thing over again and hope no one remembers.
I think his models hold up fairly well. People tend to use scenario A to say he is way off. However, Scenario B is closer to reality. This is despite the description he gave to the various scenarios. The reason is that he has made multiple errors, and the estimates of forcings and the different mix of greenhouse gases more closely match what would be his scenario B. The more recent pause makes even that scenario run hot, but not as much as scenario A.
Jimmy was on something other than science. Maybe he was smoking that Denison, Ia cow manure. Of course, if you pay those kind of scientists much wampum they will say mostly anything. It has been sufficiently proven that little Jimmy has little actual knowledge of science and no integrity.
The only climate event that happened with any significance to our overall global average temperature since 1988 was the SUPER EL NINO of 1997-98. Without that NATURAL event helping temperatures significantly, Jimmy and Al Baby's significance would be non existant to the world (not that they are anyways).
CO2 has no affect
However 29 years after that statement global temperatures have risen just a very small fraction of what Dr. Jimmy was predicting. Why were the good doctors predictions so far off? Is the "science" of so-called "global warming" so bad that computer models are no more accurate than being 10,000% wrong?
Should congress investigate why after spending billions on developing computer models, the global warming community can't get their predictions anymore accurate that that? Should all predictions be stopped until "science" gets a better understanding about the effects of co2 on the environment?
