Originally Posted by cdcox
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?
You can't possibly be serious? HOW do you not see the massive problems with this and how you have to "fudge" the model after the fact to even come close? (and still be quite a bit off by the way)
The efficacies were "adjusted" after the fact. That is a big no no. Sorry. Also the article you quote leaves out volcanic activity. Why? Well it throws their model off even more! And here is where you lose any and ALL credibility on this... they stop their data at 2003 or 2004 which is reasonable since that article is from 2007. What isn't reasonable is the fact that you argue this point and use that as evidence without knowing that the data has diverged drastically since then. According to the Hansen model (even if we pretend there were no adjustments after the fact AND we pretend that Scenario B accurately reflects reality instead of cherry picked parts of reality) he predicted that we would be at LEAST half a degree Celsius warmer than we are. THE ONLY way Hansen's model would be close to accurate currently is if reality was closer to scenario C. It isn't even close, it's far closer to A but hell I'll let you live in make believe land and think it's scenario B... fine... it's still a massive failure. Instead of a full degree off it's only HALF as wrong.
BTW I am ALSO even allowing for the LIE of what his predictions were. The site you quote uses the adjusted 3C per doubling rate NOT the 4.2C rate that Hansen was using.