From the comments:
**********************************************EXCERPT************************************
chicagoblack says:
Irrelevant. The Farmers Almanac predicted last year would be colder but it wasnt. Modeling accuracy changes over time and improvements are obviously made just like with other measurement techniques, climate or otherwise.
****************************************************************
And
***********************************************************
RobRoy says:
chicagoblack says:
Modelling accuracy changes over time
Modelling inaccuracies become apparent over time. Nothing could be more relevant than showing the Team, then and now, cannot predict climate and have over-estimated the warming from CO2 by 150 percent.
Irrelevant? Give us a break, Dude.
*******************************************EXCERPT*****************************************
Alvin says:
@Chicagoblack
The problem is that, as with the IPCC executive summary, the findings are political in nature. We are already told that catestrophic global warming was emminent based on their finding. Now we see how far off their models were, and continue to be. Yet the finding does not change. The political is driving the scientific. Your comment Modeling accuracy changes over time and improvements are obviously made just like with other measurement techniques, climate or otherwise. is irrelevant. Even if the models were re-made to show 100% accuracy in hindcast and observed it would not change the political intent to fundimentally change social progress. Capitalism and the western way of life is the target.
IMHO.
Modelling accuracy changes over time
And it improves as the data recedes into the past.
But the graph appears to show a ~0.3 degree increase (the "observed" line) 0.6 C = 1.08 F so that can't be it. Also have CO2 emissions increased by 2.5% per year? If so then Hansen was far more than 150% wrong. It appears that he said that if CO2 emissions were frozen at 2000 levels, there would be a 0.6 C increase (it appears the reporter got this prediction line confused with actual results), and that a 1.5% increase would lead to a ~1.2 C increase. I'm not sure what he meant by "constant increase," but I would guess he meant something between 0% and 1.5%. I would conservatively estimate the Hansen model would predict a 2.0 C increase in temperature for a 2.5% per year increase in CO2. But that would make him around 666% wrong, not 150%.