You write, “I assume that last 2015 is a typo in your third point.”

Yes, the third comment should have been, “3) If the 5-year average anomaly centered around 2015 was more than 0.2 deg C lower than the 5-year average centered around 2005.”

“As well, when you discuss the 5-year average, which data set would you accept? GISS or Satellite or…?”

If the question is whether anthropogenic global warming caused by greenhouse gases is the question, satellite measurements are clearly preferable. A surface thermometer can be changed simply by putting a parking lot nearby, or letting the housing get dirty. And there are the questions about representative placement. Plus, they simply don’t measure temperatures throughout the entire height of the troposphere. If the goal is to measure tropospheric temperature increase caused by greenhouse gases, satellites are clearly superior. (Of course, there are still substantial with satellites, apparently especially regarding software.)

Theoretically, the surface and satellite would match. But if they didn’t, I’d definitely be more skeptical about the surface measurements.

Harry, the IPCC reports already show that the warming signature above the tropics, that was predicted if warming was anthropogenic, have not been realized.

John M Reynolds

How many models predicted that Antarctica would cool for these last few decades?

Hi Donald,

Here are some personal answers I’d give. They’re similar to, but not exactly the same as, answers I gave Roger a couple years ago. All these are absent any significant volcanic activity in any of the years of concern:

1) If the global surface temperature anomaly dropped by more than 0.7 deg C in 2008,

2) If the 5-year average anomaly centered around 2010 was more than 0.5 deg C lower than the 5-year average centered around 2005, and

3) If the 5-year average anomaly centered around 2015 was more than 0.2 deg C lower than the 5-year average centered around 2015.

Of course, there is a problem. Hansen never provided error bars for the projections. But, if Gavin’s standards require the error bars of Roger, I suspect Gavin could add them when he does his forcast verification of Hansen ABC scenarios.

Oh.. but I’m forgetting! Gavin already did his forecast verification of Hansen. Yet, somehow, Gavin included no error bars.

(In my opinion, error bars are not required on every single “look at this” type post on a *blog*!)

http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=523#comment-79149

Should not all scientists be able to quickly and easily answer such a question? I invite Dr. Pielke to comment.

Oh, and Lucia, they are not error bars. It is kind of like the financial industry that shows the possible amount of return on investment with possible scenarios. At least the financial industry includes small print that explains that they are just estimates and the realized savings (realized temperatures in our example) may lay outside of the scenarios shown.

John M Reynolds

If he likes, he can also add the uncertainty intervals to the data and to the Scenario predictions.

I would think after adding error bars, he would then have a forecast verification chart that comes close to comparing ‘like to like’ (Land-Ocean empircal data to land-ocean computations) and using exclusively forecast data and which meets his standards for showing error bars.

That would be big improvement over he squished little graph he’s show in the past.

Of course, it will make it appear that Hansen’s predictions over estimated the temperature increase.

I believe that I felt better about NASA’s use of my tax money back when it was a space agency. Now that NASA has become Al Gore’s tax-supported global warming sidekick, I am beginning to resent NASA’s tax consumption.