Originally Posted by AustinChief
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) 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.
Exactly how do you have to fudge the model?
The argument is very simple. Hansen made predictions for three scenarios, A, B, and C. If you plot the real temperature on those projections is looks most like the prediction from scenario B. If you look at total forcing since 1985, it looks most like scenario B. What part of this do you dispute and why?