http://www.facebook.com/JamesHansenNZTour

A couple of my fellow commenters have been “disappeared” off the page. I guess they can’t take criticism.

The page has now taken on the feel of a propaganda exercise aimed at children. In the spirit of Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci, it is easier to peddle propaganda at kids whose brains haven’t properly formed yet.

Feel free to “like” the page, if you are a facebook user, and make your feelings known.

http://oi52.tinypic.com/30bfktk.jpg

ABC Rejects — Hansen admit the models are wrong, but alarmism gets the last word on the ABC.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/abc-rejects-hansen-admit-the-models-are-wrong-but-alarmism-gets-the-last-word-on-the-abc/#more-14963

Evcerpt

Hansen is finally being forced to acknowledge some uncertainties that sceptics have been pointing out – that sea level rise has decelerated from 3.1 to 2.3 mm/year, the importance of enhanced indirect solar influences proven in recent cosmic ray studies, that CO2 sinks are not becoming less efficient, the large uncertainty associated with aerosols, clouds, and of course, that the climate models are more uncertain than are usually portrayed.

Once again, we ask the question, based on the poor performance of the models against observations in recent years: do we really have an adequate scientific case that demands a policy response? More generally if policies are implemented on the back of a one-sided presentation of the science, then it is those policies and science which do society a “disservice”, not us.

Recently, James Hansen wrote about computer climate models having major shortcomings. This is not a surprise to the well informed on climate issues, since it has become very obvious that climate models have wildly overestimated global warming over the last 15 years. There is no argument about this…global warming over the last 15 years has literally disappeared.

(chart updated with April 2011 temperature data; click on the chart to enlarge)

This chart helps one to visually understand the significant and robust failure of climate models. The green curve represents NASA/Hansen climate model predictions of global temperatures if the world did not attempt to control human CO2 emissions and just let CO2 emissions grow. In fact, the world has not controlled CO2 emissions, and the CO2 emissions continue to grow, but the actual global temperatures (black and red curves) are well below that predicted green curve temperature outcome.

To add to the IPCC/NASA climate modeler’s misery, current global temperatures are even below the predicted temperature outcome (light blue – cyan curve) if the world had been able to stop CO2 emissions growth.

One can safely surmise, from the above, that all the empirical evidence points to climate models being programmed to be way too sensitive to atmospheric CO2 levels.

Again, we will state the obvious: climate models are absolutely worthless as prediction tools, including predicting global temperature averages.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/05/the-nasa-climate-model-developed-by-hansen-continues-to-wildly-overestimate-global-warming.html

(based on the recent conference at Downing College Cambridge)

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/5/24/what-we-agree-on.html

Interesting stuff on radiation, quantum physics etc.

Just a pity CSIRO and BOM are not quite so adept as the latter or Australia could have saved itself a bundle for de-salination plants (and some flooding angst and irony at the Victoria site – it’s one of those “unintended consequences when you bring in the clowns).

Now that you have joined us (I hope) in the 2nd decade of the 21st century, it’s easy to see that the upswing has reached a zenith and we will now have to wait and see whether the cycle moves to cooler temperatures relative to the last decade or whether they just remain flat out to about 2030.

Scafetta investigates the cycle in detail. See:-

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR A CELESTIAL ORIGIN OF THE CLIMATE OSCILLATIONS AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

Scafetta, Submitted May 2010

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/05/world-temp-prediction/

BTW, when do you think the latest climate science developments will be introduced in “universities, colleges – even schools”. I’m referring to the conclusions that ocean oscillations and cosmic rays are significant climate drivers (ignored by the IPCC until now). This means that the models will have to be reconfigured to take account of another 2 natural external forcings and new simulations run making all previous simulations redundant and irrelevant. It also means that the anthropogenic influence on climate is considerably less than estimated in AR1 – AR4. It’s back to the drawing board for the IPCC and they will have to “settle” the science all over again.