Cook published this graph purporting to show that Hansen is better than Lindzen at forecasting temperatures. There are so many things wrong with this graph, it is difficult to know where to start.
1. Hansen made three forecasts, Cook picked scenario “B” which Hansen described as “a reduced linear linear growth of trace gases.” Obviously that has not happened and is not the correct one. He should be comparing against scenario A. Joe Romm says that greenhouse gases have been “accelerating super-exponentially.”
2. He used Hansen’s temperature data to verify Hansen’s predictions. That is like trusting Al Gore’s lawyers to count ballots in Florida.
3. Cook offset Lindzen’s start point downwards by half a degree. Obviously the data needs to be normalized before comparing.
4. He drew scenario B below Hansen’s actual scenario B. Note the red line above is too low.
5. He drew Hansen’s measured data too high. The thick red line below and horizontal bars are from the GISS web site. The black line above it is what Cook drew. Hansen reported 0.63 for 2010, Cook placed it above 0.7
In summary, he used the wrong projection, he let Hansen officiate, he didn’t normalize Lindzen’s data, and he misplaced both the projection and the results on the graph.
Reader Chilli adds :
Another deception is that Cook just made up the “Lindzen graph”. It does not represent any prediction ever made by Lindzen. Cook made the bogus graph by simply removing CO2 from Hansen’s temperature model. Naturally this produced a flat line since Hansen’s failed model is programmed to only respond to CO2.
The flat line merely shows how the model fails to account for natural effects of sun and ocean cycles – effects which Lindzen acknowledges and Cook does not.
So bravo to Cook for setting up and knocking down a strawman using an entirely circular argument.