Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society

Climate Triumphalism

28 Comments

Universe Today is taking note of a 1981 paper by corrupt climate fraud Jim Hansen (and others) that it claims demonstrates his prescience on the issue:

Hansen wrote in the original paper:

“The global temperature rose by 0.2ºC between the middle 1960′s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4ºC in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean rend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980′s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climate zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.”

Now here we are in 2012, looking down the barrel of the global warming gun Hansen and team had reported was there 31 years earlier. In fact, we’ve already seen most of the predicted effects take place.

“Drought-prone regions” are receiving less rainfall, the Antarctic ice has begun to crack and crumble and bowhead whales are using the Northwest Passage as a polar short-cut.

This was from back in an era in which it’s possible that Hansen was still doing real science, as opposed to political advocacy, demagoguery and calls for the silencing or reeducation of his critics.

Here’s my question. I haven’t had time to read through the entire thing to see if a) the predictions quoted above are the only ones and b) if there are others, how did they hold up? In other words, did the people who dug up the paper and are now using it to herald their hero’s brilliance and far sightedness cherry pick? Let’s do a little crowd sourcing here.

[Update a few minutes later]

A lot more discussion over at Real Climate.

28 thoughts on “Climate Triumphalism”

  1. “The CO2 abundance is expected to reach 600
    ppm in the next century, even if growth
    of fossil fuel use is slow.”

    We are in the next century. Fossil use has not
    slowed. US used to be largest CO2 emitter,
    now China exceeds the US. And soon to double US emissions.
    The US and other countries have increased C02 emission.
    Despite Nation’s emission not slowing, it’s unlikely
    that before 2100, we will reach 600 ppm.
    And the only way to be effective in lowering CO2 emissions
    is to increase the use of Nuclear power.
    Which is politically incorrect and Hansen never considered
    worth his political capital violating that social taboo.

    And one could make the case that the policy of the audience
    he wishes to appeal to has blocked US industry which added
    to China extraordinary growth. Though not claiming that
    Chinese is bad, but less demand for growth, less demand for
    speed of growth, could lead less need of an energy source
    which quick to ramp up [burning coal- and is why China has
    much higher CO2 emission than the US [and more pollution].

  2. “CO2 is [delta]Ts- 1.2°C.
    This case is of special interest because it
    is the purely radiative-convective result,
    with no feedback effects.
    …
    Thus the increasing water vapor
    with higher temperature provides a feedback
    factor of -1.6.”

    No feedback has ever been found outside computer models
    that adds them.

    Hmm:
    “The sensitivity of the climate model
    we use is thus [delta]Ts – 2.8°C for doubled
    C02, similar to the sensitivity of threedimensional
    climate models (6-8). The
    estimated uncertainty is a factor of 2.”
    I always assume this is +2 or -2 C,
    but suppose it could times or divided by 2- doesn’t make
    any difference- it’s wrong in either case.
    And:
    “The warming calculated with the onedimensional
    model for the CO2 increase
    from 1880 to 1980 (25) is 0.5°C”

    That has been proven wrong.

    Later he says:
    Since the effect is linear for small
    changes of solar luminosity, a change of
    0.3 percent would modify the equilibrium
    global mean temperature by 0.5°C,
    which is as large as the equilibrium
    warming for the cumulative increase of
    atmospheric CO2 from 1880 to 1980. Solar
    luminosity variations of a few tenths
    of 1 percent could not be reliably measured
    with the techniques available during
    the past century, and thus are a
    possible cause of part of the climate
    variability in that period.”

    As it turns out, “from 1880 to 1980 ” was caused by the sun.
    So Hanson was correct to note this possibility.

    “Tentative indications of a 2 percent per
    year increase in CH4 imply an equilibrium
    warming < 0.1°(C for the CH4 increase
    to date."

    At some later Hansen gave lecture which was on C-Span
    in which he argued that CH4 was the main driver of global warming- much more than CO2 was.
    But within a year so, Methane wasn't continuing it's trend [or the recorded measurement were wrong] and then Hansen later join the Al Gore
    CO2 bandwagon.

    1. ++

      Also note that James Hansen first predicted a new ice age. So… he’s covered the full spectrum. “Hey! I was right once!” is about as useful as a sundial with no gnomen.

      1. Al,
        you took the pixels right out from under my keyboard. I remember when all these climate nuts were calling for another ice age. I’ve still got my old issues of Mother Earth News saying so. But the climate gurus also said burning wood for heat and using diesel fuel for vehicles was GOOD for the environment.

        It seems to me, that if we could get half of them to push for global warning and half of them to push for an ice age, won’t that set is straight?

  4. Hansen also predicted the oceans would rise enough by 2010 to cover the west side expressway in New York city.

  5. The graph they show shows warming from 1998 to present when there has been no net warming and even a touch of cooling.

  6. Al: James Hansen first predicted a new ice age.

    Dennis Wingo: Hansen also predicted the oceans would rise enough by 2010 to cover the west side expressway in New York city.

    Both claims are lies, but hey, I guess if you repeat a lie often enough…

    1. Well now I want to see some links but it isn’t like the alarmists have been good with their predictions.

    2. At the time, Rasool held the position at GISS that Hansen now holds. It was Rasool’s paper, but they used GISS atmospheric models. At the time, Hansen was a GISS atmospheric modeler. Hansen continues Rasool’s efforts to use GISS as an organ to affect social change, rather than its original funded purpose to study space. Its odd now that Hansen runs GISS that it considers it role to study global change and its man-made causes rather than studying the environment of space and other planets, much of which is completely untouched by man. The hoax is the notion that climate and weather are different topics, which is the argument GISS made to Congress to explain why it deserves funding to perform the work originally mandated by NOAA.

      I thought about it over the weekend and laughed. It’s funny that Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo worked so hard to develop Heliocentrism only to have NASA scientist today argue that its man that controls the heavens and the earth.

  7. I note that the plot has no indication of either model uncertainty nor the variance of real temperatures over time, especially as the past trend is only shown to a very limited degree (i.e. back to 1950), so I don’t see how people can regard this as a serious indicator of predictive skill.

    To me, the most telling thing about this is that if this is the best piece of scientific ‘evidence’ there is after more than 30 years of research, then the CAGW hypothesis looks rather weak, to say the least.

  8. Again, I pont out how the graph shows continual warming past 1998 when most everybody agrees there has been none. Why is everybody missing the Elephant in the room?

    1. Indeed. Hansen said “It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980′s.” Well, apparently it’s gone back down below the noise level, if it ever rose above it.

    2. My understanding is that the lack of recent warming is ‘explained’ by increases in aerosols concentrations that were neither well understood nor anticipated back in 1981.

      However, I’m far from convinced by this ‘excuse’ and remain rather skeptical of the CAGW hypothesis because, after more than 30 years of extremely well funded research, there is still not a single piece of unambiguous scientific evidence (i.e. a verifiable/falsifiable prediction) to support it. The best you can say is that if there is real evidence to be found, the signal still remains buried within the noise.

    3. Most everybody? 1998 was warm, but the GISS data set shows 2005, 2007 and 2010 as warmer still, and the rolling averages have continued to move up.

      1. Yes, the latest ‘tweaked’ data does claim this even though the general trend still falls far short of the predictions. However, as as already mentioned and depending upon who you believe, this lack of warming may well be strong ‘evidence’ for the CAGW hypothesis.

        Still, with the empirical data showing such a poor signal to noise ration, activists are able to argue every-which-way without fear of falsification.

      3. Oh yes, the *cough*adjusted(cooked)*cough* data.

        So the headline should really read “Phoney massaged data confimrs specious hypothesis!”

        Yawn!

        1. It really is kind of pitiful. Even if the data are tortured enough to give the desired sign, it isn’t nearly as much as it would be if the hypothesis were true.

        1. Anyone who takes their cues from skepticalscience, which is a known propaganda site habitually engaging in “(1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting” is an idiot.

          Wiki: “# Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.”

          I don’t suppose you’d like to address the point about “The Escalator” rather than use the red herring of an ad hominem attack on skepticalscience?

          1. You must be joking. You’re accusing me of ad hom when the subject is John Cook? Ha!

            Anyway, the land signal is crap. You’re missing 2/3 of the Earth. Globally, we’re just repeating the hump around 1940. This has all happened before, and will happen again. And, CO2 has little, if anything, to do with it.

Comments are closed.