What is the current global surface air temperature, and how closely did Hansen project it?

The only in-depth analysis I've seen by a credible research climatologist appears here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007...

That scientist, one of the top research climatologists in the world, concluded:

"My assessment is that the model results were as consistent with the real world over this period as could possibly be expected and are therefore a useful demonstration of the model's consistency with the real world. Thus when asked whether any climate model forecasts ahead of time have proven accurate, this comes as close as you get."

Everyone can read that analysis for themselves to see how he came to that conclusion.

Here's that scientist's bio:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=46

"Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and is interested in modeling past, present and future climate. He works on developing and improving coupled climate models and, in particular, is interested in how their results can be compared to paleoclimatic proxy data. He also works on assessing the climate response to multiple forcings, such as solar irradiance, atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, and greenhouse gases.

He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He serves on the CLIVAR/PAGES Intersection and the Earth System Modeling Framework Advisory Panels and is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Climate. He was cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004, and has worked on Education and Outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences. He has over 50 peer-reviewed publications.

More information about his research and publication record can be found here."

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin/

NOTE: Ashley's chart was produced by oil company executive Steven McIntyre which is probably why he did not reveal the whole analysis producing that chart, and the source of the chart is obscured via a generic blogger URL.

Gee, I wonder what an oil company executive would plug into the model, sucha s where corections need to be made for things like actual vs. assumed timing of volcanoes. What datasets would the fossil fuel industry use to compare the model against? Do you think he might have just a wee bit of bias and sifted through all the possibilities to pick a worst case scenario to portray, and maybe skip a few of the fair and rational corrections? Clearly the purpose of climate models is not to forecast the timing of random volcanoeruptions, but would be easy for a so-called "skeptic" to leave the placeholder assumptions intact to deceptively claim that the model did not predict observed climate changes.

The bottom line is, Hansen accurately predicted significant global warming, while some skeptics claim even today that there's an equal probability of warming or cooling. Obviously that's dead wrong. There are hundreds of scientific papers documenting the science behind the predictions of warming, there isn't a single peer-reviewed scientific paper proposing that the warming is not occuring, or that mankind plays no role in that warming.

I live within walking distance of the Pacific Ocean, and I have lived here when the alarmists/leftists were proclaiming global cooling. Over 30 years ago they started chanting global warming and predicted that where I live would have a serious rise in ocean levels, flooding lowlands, that would happen within twenty year or less. That was 25 years ago and I'm still waiting. Nothing has changed, not the ocean level, not the water temperature. The state climatologist, George Taylor, exposed the scam, and he is a real scientist, not a politician. The state governor read Taylor's report, and fired him, or tried to. Taylor wasn't politically correct. Also, I studied Earth Science in college as a minor. Also, I'm not new to science; I've spent my live working in Science and Technology. All my friends are scientists or technologists. So, don't repeat Al Gore's lies to me. This climate change hoax runs along leftist political lines, and it is fed by liars and morons. Believe it!

Yes, as several have confirmed, their Scenario B has been quite close to actual data, even though dozens of variables and factors/ cycles of Nature have to be considered. And yes, as our science leaders have been trying to explain to the public, such very complex models should be continually verified and improved plus our support and funds are well justified, versus the accelerated trashing from the "denial machinery".

See attached - this shows the predictions (each reflecting three CO2 scenarios - scenario A being the applicable one) in color, and the predicted temperatures (different measures) in gray and black.

How accurate were the predictions? You be the judge:

http://bp2.blogger.com/_X93w7bCMCS8/SJBFVxWNckI/AA...

The mid troposphere shows very little warming over the last thirty years, who cares what the surface temperature record shows, it is not a valid metric to asses changes in the greenhouse process.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe-m...

Look at the data. Hansen was right on. He has personally collected a large data sample. Billions of standardized records. So he knows what is happening.

We can change. Stop polluting, by electric cars. Support hydrogen. Stop polluting!