On Sep 16, 3:09*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
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

______________________________
So this paper that proves that AGW makes correct predictions is not
available on the internet, and nor is any other evidence of correct
predictions?

*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.

____________________________
But alas you cannot provide a link to any sites that show the specific
predictions of a climate model and the subsequent experimental results,
except for a graph that does not say when the predictions were made.

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.

____________________________
Now I know you are making things up. An "exponential growth" can be faster
or slower than linear growth over limitted time periods. For example, T =
10000x grows much faster than T = e^(x/10000) for x10000. No scientist
would assume that exponential means faster than linear over a limitted
period.

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.

_________________________________
You did not give me a pointer to any of this. In fact, I suspect you are
making some of it up.

Once again you cann't read what was posted.

____________________________
You mean, what you claimed? I certainly read the web links you provided;
alas, they did not explain what the Scenarios were, when they were made, or
what they specifically claimed.

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.

__________________________
Error bars? I didn't see any error bars at all in what you have posted.
Error bars in the predictions or in the experimental results? Are you just
making this up?

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

____________________________
I must admit that I am very concerned about things that don't exist,
specifically evidence for AGW.

I am concerned that the drugs you are taking aren't helping you. You
clearly need to see your physician about adjusting your dosages.
Let's see I said that you need to go to page 9347 of Hansen, J., I.
Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone,
1988: Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for
Space Studies three-dimensional model. J. Geophys. Res., 93,
9341-9364, doi:10.1029/88JD00231. Where you would find the prediction
from 1988 You would also find the exact details about each scenario
Exactly what don't you understand about that?

Document clearly what your objections to the labeling, careful
descriptions of each scenario and the what is wrong with the an error
of +-0.07 degree C about the graphed values for scenario B are.

Since the paper was published in 1988 and the graph is PREDICTION of
the mean global temperature. Please document at what page number and
line number where you find something you disagree with.

At the link I posted the OBSERVED GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE IS OVERLAID
ON THE PREDICTION MADE IN 1988 AS YOU REQUESTED. I ALSO SAID THE
SOURCE OF THE OBSERVED GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE HAD AN ERROR OF +- 0.06
degree C about the graphed values.

So there we have it folks, Webb got what he asked for and now he lies
about it.

Strangest think when I worked with the scientists at the Bureau of
Meteorology in Darwin I thought the Australians were on a whole better
educated than most. Webb proves there is always an exception to the
rule.