On Sep 15, 7:29*pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"yourmommycalled" wrote in message

...
On Sep 15, 7:50 am, "Peter wrote:

Let me ask you one more time. If this graph was prepared in 1988, how come
it shows actual temperature measurements after 1988? And why doesn't it
have
a legend which explains what the curves are supposed to represent? And why
are the curves so spectacularly wrong anyway?

*What is it that you do not understand? Are you really incapable of
reading a simple post? As I have repeatedly posted over and over and
over and over again the graph is from a paper published in 1988.

____________________________________
So you say. The "evidence" you have posted is a graph with many curves drawn
on it, some labelled "scenario A", "Scenario B" etc. The graph does not say
what these scenarios are or when they were published. The graph does not
help identify the period of prediction, as it clearly includes "predictions"
going back decades. Really, if AGW has strong experimental support, there
must be something better on the internet than an unexplained bitmap of a
graph.

*The
graph on page 9347 of the 1988 paper does not show observed
temperatures after 1988. The 1988 paper is the prediction. Had you
read anything on the page I linked you would learned that the graph in
the link is the verification of the 1988 forecast with observed data
as YOU DEMANDED.

________________________________
The link you provided does not say or imply in any way that these were 1988
predictions. 1998 is not mentioned in any way; it is not specially labelled
on the graph, there is simply NO stated connection between the graph you
have posted and the year 1988.

The link compares the 1988 forecast with observed
data WHICH IS WHAT YOU DEMANDED.

______________________________
Again, so you say, but the graph certainly doesn't claim to be that.

The forecasted rate of temperature
increase for the scenario B was 0.24 +- 0.07 degrees per decade. If
you use only WMO surface stations (no sampling over the ocean) the
observed trend 0.25 +- 0.06 degrees per decade, while the land-ocean
based samples give 0.21 +- 0.06. In simples terms the curves all fit
inside the error bars. Everything you asked for is present you are
simply incapable of reading or understanding anything that is
presented in response to your questions

____________________________________
So was "Scenario B" for land temperatures or ocean temperature? Again, the
graph is unlabelled, so it is impossible to say what these curves are
supposed to be predictions of, and when they were made. Also, why Scenario
"B" ? Are you just discounting scenarios "A" and "C" because they were wrong
(were they?), ignoring two incorrect predictions on the graph but accepting
the one you later found out best matched the data? Aren't you just
cherry-picking the best curve, after you know what actually happened?

Once again you are just proving the you are about as stupid as you can
get and still have a functioning brain. Here is a remarkable concept
that seems to help scientists around the world READ. Yes I know you
cannot read, but at least you can ask some to read it to you. The
predictions are on page 9347 of the 1988 paper The discussion of what
scenarios A, B and C are and their importance have been the subject of
so many web sites and posts that google reports 1.090,000 hits on that
subject. In the original 1988 paper, three different scenarios were
used A, B, and C. They consisted of hypothesised future concentrations
of the main greenhouse gases – CO2, CH4, CFCs etc. together with a few
scattered volcanic eruptions. The details varied for each scenario,
but the net effect of all the changes was that Scenario A assumed
exponential growth in greenhouse gases, Scenario B was roughly a
linear increase in greenhouse gases, and Scenario C was similar to B,
but had close to constant greenhouse gas concentrations from 2000
onwards. Scenario B and C had an ‘El Chichon’ sized volcanic eruption
in 1995. Essentially, a high, middle and low estimate were chosen to
bracket the set of possibilities. Hansen specifically stated that he
thought the middle scenario (B) the “most plausible”. I didn't
discount scenarios A and C, they are right there on the graph for
everyone but you to see. The trouble with scenario A is that
greenhouses DID NOT INCREASE EXPONENTIALLY. Scenario C didn't come
true either WE CONTINUED TO INCREASE EMISSIONS AFTER 2000.SINCE THE
CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BY THOSE SCENARIOS DID NOT OCCUR BY DEFINITION
THOSE FORECASTS WILL BE WRONG. Once again had you read anything I
pointed you at rather than shooting your mouth off, you would have
read this and I would not be posting the same response reworded at a
lower and lower level each time.

Once again you cann't read what was posted. I gave you what model
scenario B predicted in 1988 as global mean temperature rate of
increase (0.24 +- 0.07 degrees per decade.) compared to the two
common measures of observed global mean temperature rate of increase:
A land only (0.25 +- 0.06 degrees per decade) and a land/ocean (0.21
+- 0.06). REGARDLESS OF WHICH SET OF OBSERVATIONS USED THE FORECAST
CREATED IN 1988 MATCHES THE OBSERVED RATE OF INCREASE OF GLOBAL MEAN
TEMPERATURE TO WITHIN THE ERROR BARS.

As I predicted you continue to blather about things that don't exist
rather than admit you know nothing.