View Single Post
Old 04-16-2013, 09:32 PM   #20
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $1701061
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdcox View Post
Last time we had this discussion I gave the example of Hansen's 1988 predictions (very unsophisticated compared to those made today) which I contend has turned out to be a very reasonable prediction.

You argued that CO2 was above scenario A, while I countered that by looking at all forms of forcing (NOx, CFCs, methane, volcanic activity, etc) that we were really between scenarios B and C. (see post 57 in the thread below)

In post 58, you said I was wrong but never demonstrated why...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=268444

So no matter how many capital letters you use, you have not yet demonstrated that Hansen's predictions in 1988 were erroneous. If you can show that total forcing since 1985 is above scenario A, I'll grant that the Hansen 1988 prediction was wrong, but the ball is in your court.
I can't see how you can lie with a straight face about Hansen's 1988 predictions somehow being accurate. They are only accurate if you go back and CHANGE the model. Period. As I stated then and I'll reiterate... your point about other forms of forcing can make his model invalid to the argument but it CERTAINLY doesn't make it ACCURATE. I'm happy to agree that his model wasn't "wrong" it was just incomplete therefore can not be used to predict current conditions based on measurable data.

So, my point still stands.

NOT ONE MODEL HAS BEEN ACCURATE AND PREDICTIVE without requiring significant "fudging" after the fact. btw.. even Hansen admits he was significantly off on the effects of CO2 which is why he has revised his model to reflect the new numbers.

And yes his 1988 predictions were very rudimentary compared to todays models. And there is a CHANCE (highly highly unlikely.. see computational power required and Hamiltonian mechanics for one of many reasons why) that we are sitting on a model today that is more than accurate enough. BUT you can't declare the your hypothesis correct until you DO THE ****ING EXPERIMENT. No matter how much you BELIEVE it's true doesn't make it so.

Talking to climate zealots is like talking to Creationists. No amount of scientific fact or logic is going to sway them.
Posts: 14,281
AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote