-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
This is typical of the horseshit you need to sift through to get at the truth.
Hansen's model with scenarios A, B, C versus observations
Revisionist history suggests Hansen's model was out because of overestimated levels of CFC's and methane (his scenarios A & B already use accurate forecasts of CO2).
Hansen's model does not include El Nino impacts. Hansen also factored in a major volcanic event in scenarios B & C, which didn't happen (i.e. a guess).
After reasonable adjustments are factored in, only scenario C is anywhere near observed temperatures. But scenario C allowed for no increase in CO2 beyond 368 ppm (currently 412 ppm).
It is just *smile* to retrofit some figures and not others to a highly speculative model and claim it was accurate. If it was any good, ask yourself why it is not being used now.
Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?
James Hansen issued dire warnings in the summer of 1988. Today earth is only modestly warmer. (paywalled)
James E. Hansen wiped sweat from his brow. Outside it was a record-high 98 degrees on June 23, 1988, as the NASA scientist testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during a prolonged heat wave, which he decided to cast as a climate event of cosmic significance. He expressed to the senators his “high degree of confidence” in “a cause-and-effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming.”
With that testimony and an accompanying paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Mr. Hansen lit the bonfire of the greenhouse vanities, igniting a world-wide debate that continues today about the energy structure of the entire planet. President Obama’s environmental policies were predicated on similar models of rapid, high-cost warming. But the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s predictions affords an opportunity to see how well his forecasts have done—and to reconsider environmental policy accordingly.
Mr. Hansen’s testimony described three possible scenarios for the future of carbon dioxide emissions. He called Scenario A “business as usual,” as it maintained the accelerating emissions growth typical of the 1970s and ’80s. This scenario predicted the earth would warm 1 degree Celsius by 2018. Scenario B set emissions lower, rising at the same rate today as in 1988. Mr. Hansen called this outcome the “most plausible,” and predicted it would lead to about 0.7 degree of warming by this year. He added a final projection, Scenario C, which he deemed highly unlikely: constant emissions beginning in 2000. In that forecast, temperatures would rise a few tenths of a degree before flatlining after 2000.
Thirty years of data have been collected since Mr. Hansen outlined his scenarios—enough to determine which was closest to reality. And the winner is Scenario C. Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. But we didn’t. And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.
James Hansen testifies before a Senate Transportation subcommittee in Washington, D.C., May 8, 1989. Photo: Dennis Cook/AP
What about Mr. Hansen’s other claims? Outside the warming models, his only explicit claim in the testimony was that the late ’80s and ’90s would see “greater than average warming in the southeast U.S. and the Midwest.” No such spike has been measured in these regions.
As observed temperatures diverged over the years from his predictions, Mr. Hansen doubled down. In a 2007 case on auto emissions, he stated in his deposition that most of Greenland’s ice would soon melt, raising sea levels 23 feet over the course of 100 years. Subsequent research published in Nature magazine on the history of Greenland’s ice cap demonstrated this to be impossible. Much of Greenland’s surface melts every summer, meaning rapid melting might reasonably be expected to occur in a dramatically warming world. But not in the one we live in. The Nature study found only modest ice loss after 6,000 years of much warmer temperatures than human activity could ever sustain.
Several more of Mr. Hansen’s predictions can now be judged by history. Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted in a 2016 study? No. Satellite data from 1970 onward shows no evidence of this in relation to global surface temperature. Have storms caused increasing amounts of damage in the U.S.? Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show no such increase in damage, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product. How about stronger tornadoes? The opposite may be true, as NOAA data offers some evidence of a decline. The list of what didn’t happen is long and tedious.
The problem with Mr. Hansen’s models—and the U.N.’s—is that they don’t consider more-precise measures of how aerosol emissions counter warming caused by greenhouse gases. Several newer climate models account for this trend and routinely project about half the warming predicted by U.N. models, placing their numbers much closer to observed temperatures. The most recent of these was published in April 2018 by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry in the Journal of Climate, a reliably mainstream journal.
These corrected climate predictions raise a crucial question: Why should people world-wide pay drastic costs to cut emissions when the global temperature is acting as if those cuts have already been made?
On the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s galvanizing testimony, it’s time to acknowledge that the rapid warming he predicted isn’t happening. Climate researchers and policy makers should adopt the more modest forecasts that are consistent with observed temperatures.
That would be a lukewarm policy, consistent with a lukewarming planet.
-----
For a more detailed analysis: https://judithcurry.com/2018/07/03/the-hansen-forecasts-30-years-later/
Alright mate, I've had my fun and my few beers. You've linked to 2 friends of the Heartland Institute. A Koch and Exxon funded right wing think tank. If you've any interest in independant accuracy please do better. My point stands, I can't take you seriously so long as these are your sources.
Wouldn't you need a meta analysis of the denial argument to show its a valid argument before you need to disprove it?
I’m mostly just looking for a starting point for this topic.
The onus is on rejecting the null hypothesis that recent increases are within normal fluctuations.
Last edited:
One of the authors you are dismissing is John Christy. Former IPCC climate report lead author. Fellow of the American Meteorological Society. Alabama state climatologist for the last 20 years. Recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.
Judith Curry is currently on NASA earth science boards. Member of the NOAA Climate Working Group. Author of 130 peer-reviewed papers.
Just because these people are posting on blogs doesn't make them all paid goons. You painting all dissenters as uneducated idiots doesn't make it so.
Last edited:
The likelihood of a Royal Commission into the bushfires is growing after first being flagged by the Greens and backed by Labor. Interesting that the Greens have largely fallen silent on bushfires.
The greens have had plenty to say about the bushfires. Richard Di Natale attended and addressed the climate change protest in Melbourne on Friday evening.
They're message hasn't really changed, but they've largely been overshadowed by our coal loving PM, who's has stolen the limelight for all the wrong reasons.
I reckon I could save them $100m, and write the recommendation for them to ignore right now.
1. The climate has changed
2. Therefore a paradigm shift in modes to manage fuel build up is required
3. heaps of new regulatory and planning frameworks need to be put in place to minimise the risk to humans and infrastructure required at all levels of government
there will be another 100 or so other recs calling for further research and new laws
the PM of the day will hold a press conference with a big fat glossy report, then nothing will really happen.
The government will get a bill for a few hundred million, on top of the $2b recovery and in order to preserve a budget surplus, they'll call in a heap of debt from students, welfare recipients and PAYG workers, they'll fudge some numbers and present a mirage.
The new season of im a celebrity, get me out of here will start
and everyone will forget and keep going along as before
then we'll get a heap more droughts and fires and cyclones and famines and resource wars.
Cormac McCarthy and Margaret Atwood novels will become fleetingly collectable.
then we'll all die
then without the filth, greed and stupidity of humanity, the planet will recover
and some other species (my money is on crows) will rise over the next 100 million years
and one day some cunning crow will start a cult based on the scripture of a petrified (Black, hard, full of carbon and delusion) Royal Commissions.
and the crows will *smile* up the planet
and some other species will rise.
this cycle might happen for a trillion years, until eventual, some as yet unevolved species (my money is on an evolutionary convergence of a crocodile, a parrot, an octopus a pangolin, a camphor laurel and a single strand of the DNA of Dustin Martin) gets it right
Ha ha. Yeah.
Hang on, aren't you dismissing all credible scientists on the planet? Amateurs I tells ya
The smoke in Sydney & Canberra today is uninhabitable again. How long can people live in these conditions before they consider moving out as climate refugees?
This is because of Murdoch BT. His damned right winged US propaganda networks.
You are once again very very wrong. Look at the decade up to 2012 and tell me there wasn't a flatline aka "global warming hiatus".
Has Global Warming Paused?
Climate scientists know the answer is no, but have trouble communicating thatwww.scientificamerican.com
Aah the UAH data, commonly used by the deniersphere because it is the only dataset that goes anywhere near justifying the crap they peddle.
You do realise the UAH data is an outlier?
I presume you also realise that what the UAH data attempts to do is to measure the temperature of the lower troposphere. I use the word "attempts" as it isn't like they put thermometers up there and measure actual temperature, rather they measure microwave emissions and then, using a model, extrapolate the temperature from that. Ooh, relying on a model now. Hmm, let's see what we could say about that: I suspect their model contains human determined variables, that they don't have a full understanding of all the factors involved in converting microwave emissions into temperature estimates.
In contrast, the temperature readings relied upon by NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT etc are actual temperature readings using actual thermometers actually located where we all live (on the ground, not in the troposphere).
Why does it not surprise me that you rely on this modelling of temperatures rather than actual readings when it suits you?
DS
My not so learned colleague up the other end of the bell curve
Needs an AusLan translation for statistical concepts.
Fun Fact #1: the AusLan code for climate change denier looks to be informed in equal measures by Ostrich ethnography and longshore drift. I wouldnta beleived it if i didnt hear it with my own eyes.
Fun Fact #2: the Auslan code for line of best fit is a simile of the code for jason castagne
Yes, lower troposhere being the lowest level of earth's atmosphere and the air we breathe...
I've been citing it for years, not that you johnny-come-latelys would realise it. Spencer's work is respected even in warmist circles and his pioneering use of satellites to gather data garnered many scientific awards. Satellites provide full and consistent global coverage that is unachievable via terrestrial stations. (That the readings are tamper-proof is an added asset.)
The Spencer/UAH data shows more warming (0.18 degrees/decade v 0.17) than the "gold standard" HadCRUT4 surface temperature data since 2003.
Keep scoffing, activist boy.
Last edited:
ouch. 