The flawed "Hockey Stick"? Weird, last time I checked it was endorsed by the NAS-NRC panel that reviewed it:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676
And it's strange too, because if the "Hockey Stick" is flawed, why do all of the other temperature proxy records agree with it?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Every other proxy record has produced this similar pattern ie. anomalous rate of change and magnitude of warming inthe latter 20th C compared to the remainder of the millennia. The Mann Hockey Stick is the medium blue line.
Hansen's 1988 model was accurate:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
The only way you can arrive at the conclusion that it isn't is by misrepresenting either the model results or the temperature record. Funnily enough, both strategies have been attempted by denialists, then subsequently exposed for the fraud they were, and then, of course, recycled by denialists posting in internet forums.
Patrick Michaels misrepresented Hansen's model results to the US senate (detailed in the NASA link above), and climate audit commenter (and occasional poster) Willis Eschenbach misrepresented the temperature record, detailed here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/08/climate_fraudit.php
EDIT:
Interesting, I've just read amancalledfchud's supposed "de-bunking" of Hansen's model work. Initially I saw your point about 1998, but in your response you go over the top and miss a few basic facts:
"It *should* stop in 2000 to coincide with the date of Hansen’s estimates, but does it? I think we’d all have to agree that it doesn’t, in fact, go all the way to 2000. So why not? It’s because they stop the observed temperature line in the very hot year of 1998 – the hottest year in about the last 70. Why do they stop the line there? Because after 1998 temperature suddenly dropped like a rock, to a level that is close to, or perhaps even lower, than the 1988 temperature."
The temperature in 1999, after 1988, did not drop to a temperature equivalent to 1988, or lower, and no year since then has done this as you claim:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
As you can see, the data shows that 1988 had a temperature anomaly of ~0.2oC, and 1999 had a temperature anomaly of ~0.33oC. But comparing single years yo each other is pretty meaningless. More importantly, the trend beyond 1998 is not one of falling temperatures as amancalledchud would have us believe, no, the temperature trend is resoundingly upwards:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig_E.lrg.gif
My earlier link to Deltoid continues the comparison between the data and the model, and there is still good agreement:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/08/climate_fraudit.php
In my link to the NASA page discussing Hansen's model you will see that it was written in January 1999. Therefore, how on Earth could Hansen have compared temperatures in 2000 whilst writing in 1999? Unless he has a time machine you need to retract your claims regarding Dana / Hansen and claims made against Hansen in earlier posts.
EDIT:
Thank you for making the correction with regard to 1988/89. I have to agree with you, but what is your point? I would not expect Hansen' model to have predicted the El Nino in 1998, and, thus, I would not expect it to have shown 1998 to be a very hot year. Hansen's model still captures the trend, which was my point. If you look at Deltoid's version of the graph you can see the extended comparison.
I strongly disagree with you that "*everyone*" said A was most likely. Going directly to the primary source it is possible to see that Hansen explicitly stated that B was most likely. He states this in his 1988 paper. As it turned out B was pretty close to it until 2000 and then C is was closer. This is apparently due to the decrease in development in the USSR at the end of the cold war. Comparing the forcings between the model and reality shows that the agreement goes beyond simnply the temperature. Have a look at this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
With regard to your earlier criticisms against Hansen (in the other thread) these seem pretty baseless in light of the revelation that the graph was created in 1999 and that more up-to-date versions do exist and show a continuing agreement between model and data. Your criticism relied upon the fact that Hansen had apparently "engineered" the graph to end in 1998, false. The insinuation was that further comparison would invalidate the model, false, as deltoid shows. The substantive criticism against your critique of Hansen still stands.
On Hockey Sticks, why, if Mann's HS is so wrong do all of the other proxy records support their result?
Also, why, whenever anyone mentions the red-noise to HS statisitcal model do they completely fail to mention the magnitude of the induced HS? Anyone would assume that it invalidated the result given all the fuss. Yet, if you examine McIntyre's GRL paper it is clear that these red noise HSs only have a warming magnitude of hundredths of a degree. So, yes, this is a substantive criticism, but does it actually invalidate the result? Hardly, given that the observed change in temperatures in the Mann paper is on the order of 0.8oC fromthe start of the industrial revolution. This is hardly of cosmic significance. I never stated that there weren't errors in Mann's work, but the interesting question should be one of "does it change the result?"
On surface temperature networks, you should have a look at the latest comparison between GISS-temp and the supposedly golden sites (as selected by Watts and co.):
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/cherry_picking_confirmed.php
On the subject of satellite temperature trends, which dataset are you going to use? RSS actually shows a greater warming trend compared to the surface stations. I'm not sure it's possible to call the race between UAH and RSS.
Just to clarify. Drawing a line between two years and calling it a trend is not a normal procedure - it's idiotic. It is much more common to compare decadal trends ie. 0.15oC per decade by fitting a trend line through all of the data. I notice that you quoted three temperature shifts in your reply to enraged parrot and I wouldn't recommend that. It's more typical in climatology to take thirty year average to derive a trend. This way the bumps and humps due to natural variability get evened out so as not bias the results either way. My point is that if you could get the numbers and compare trends on that Deltoid Hansen graph you would see pretty good agreement in the trends in the obs and in B and C. Look at the real climate post, it does this comparison and it is right up to date. Talk about trends fitted to all of the data and stop cherry picking start and end points. Your analysis method is completely sensitive to the start and end criteria. Without checking you assumed that this was standard procedure, but it isn't for the very reasons I've just highlighted. The method of using trend lines fitted to all of the data is not sensitive to the start and end point, which is why scientists use that method.
OK, I've just read more of your reply to parrot. We've got two sources now which have made a more complete comparison beyond Hansen' NASA link and Dana' link. You've stated that you expect the model / data comparison to breakdown beyond this point and that this is the reason you believe that Dana's link doesn't make the comparison. Look at the two links that I have provided (real climate and Deltoid) because they show that your hunch is wrong. I think it far more likely that Dana's link is just outdated and the owner simply hasn't gotten round to updating it - fair enough. Updating this graph isn't going to make Hansen's model look wrong though, in fact it just further empahsises how right he was.