From their Die kalte Sonne website, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning put up this guest Post by Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim (Oslo) on Hansen’s 1988 forecast, and show that Hansen was and is, way off the mark. h/t to Pierre Gosselin of No Tricks Zone and WUWT reader tips.
Figure 1: Temperature forecast Hansen’s group from the year 1988. The various scenarios are 1.5% CO 2 increase (blue), constant increase in CO 2 emissions (green) and stagnant CO 2 emissions (red). In reality, the increase in CO 2 emissions by as much as 2.5%, which would correspond to the scenario above the blue curve. The black curve is the ultimate real-measured temperature (rolling 5-year average). Hansen’s model overestimates the temperature by 1.9 ° C, which is a whopping 150% wrong. Figure supplemented by Hansen et al. (1988) .
One of the most important publications on the “dangerous anthropogenic climate change” is that of James Hansen and colleagues from the year 1988, in the Journal of Geophysical Research published. The title of the work is (in German translation) “Global climate change, according to the prediction of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”
In this publication, Hansen and colleagues present the GISS Model II, with which they simulate climate change as a result of concentration changes of atmospheric trace gases and particulate matter (aerosols). The scientists here are three scenarios:
A: increase in CO 2 emissions by 1.5% per year
B: constant increase in CO 2 emissions after 2000
C: No increase in CO 2 emissions after 2000
The CO 2 emissions since 2000 to about 2.5 percent per year has increased, so that we would expect according to the Hansen paper a temperature rise, which should be stronger than in model A. Figure 1 shows the three Hansen scenarios and the real measured global temperature curve are shown. The protruding beyond Scenario A arrow represents the temperature value that the Hansen team would have predicted on the basis of a CO 2 increase of 2.5%. Be increased according to the Hansen’s forecast, the temperature would have compared to the same level in the 1970s by 1.5 ° C. In truth, however, the temperature has increased by only 0.6 ° C.
It is apparent that the next to it by the Hansen group in 1988 modeled temperature prediction by about 150%. It is extremely regrettable that precisely this type of modeling of our politicians is still regarded as a reliable climate prediction.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gary Pearse says:June 16, 2012 at 11:59 am
Please, that’s SO boring. I’m going to chain myself to a coal plant till someone pays attention to me, that’s how REAL climate science is done.
That doesn’t quite jive with Hansen’s projected numbers for 2011 :
– Scenario A: 393.74 ppmv
– Scenario B: 390.99 ppmv
– Scenario C: 367.81 ppmv
and observed average concentration for 2011:
– Mauna Loa: 391.57 ppmv
———————————————————————————————————-
Emissions were still worse than Scenario, A though — remember, CO2 absorption was among the many, many things Hansen was wrong about. China has been starting a coal plant every week (oddly we haven’t seen Hansen in front of any of them, I guess he heard what happened to that guy in Tiananmen Square around the time he was issuing failed predictions).
REPLY: Well you see Dana Nuccitelli is rather immature (he’s a kid that rides a scooter) in his emotional view of the issue. He complained that commenters and contributors on WUWT were referring to Skeptical Science with the abbreviation “SS”, due the Nazi connotation it carried, so I made it a policy not to use that abbreviation. I asked him not to use “denier” anymore, but he’s so full of hatred he can’t help himself. So, I just don’t have much sympathy for somebody who makes demands but won’t reciprocate – Anthony
But he’s cool with the abbreviation “SkS” and the Soviet weapon connotation.
Sheesh. Kids today…
Phil. says:
June 18, 2012 at 12:03 pm
PHIL: Nope, another one who can’t read! It was based on all emissions as has been pointed out several times in this thread.
================================================================
ME: I can read (really!) but I hadn’t read some of what’s been said. Apologies.
But we both agree that his model was, indeed, “wrong”. By 150% or 60%? It doesn’t really matter. Either way it’s not trustworthy. My main beef is that policies, very expensive policies both in lost dollars and freedoms, have been made based on this and other faulty predictions and “postdictions”. Example, CO2 is ruled a pollutant because the Wizard of COz said it was.
==========================================================================
PHIL:So you asserted that the model was based on CO2 only without any facts to back it up, you should apologize for such misleading statements!
===================================================
ME: Feel free to reread my first sentence.
++++++++++++++++++++++
ME from previous comment: But we both agree that his model was, indeed, “wrong”. By 150% or 60%? It doesn’t really matter.
===================================
ME: I did misread this. Dana admitted Hansen was wrong. You never did.
==================================================================
PHIL responding to “ME from previous comment”: No we don’t, the “By 150% or 60%?” was based on ridiculous mis-statements which had no basis in fact! What is true is that the model which used a very good estimate for the upcoming emissions over the next 25 years, the sensitivity used a value which although reasonable at the time has proved to be slightly high.
========================================================================
So how “wrong” would you say he was (and is)? If you want to claim he was right for the wrong reasons (CFC reductions etc.) then why all the fuss about reducing CO2? Why claim CO2 is a pollutant when it do what he said it would? Why harness the world’s economies to it’s reduction?
Corection: “when it do what ” should be “when it doesn’t do what”.
David Ball says:
June 17, 2012 at 2:24 pm
“To bracket future conditions” – as Orwellian doublespeak as it gets.
Really, I think it’s very clear and borne out by the data: e.g.
Hansen’s projected numbers for CO2 in 2011 :
– Scenario A: 393.74 ppmv
– Scenario B: 390.99 ppmv
– Scenario C: 367.81 ppmv
and observed average concentration for 2011:
– Mauna Loa: 391.57 ppmv
Gunga Din says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 18, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Corection: “when it do what ” should be “when it doesn’t do what”.
===============================================================
I can’t read. I can’t type. What can I say?
Anthony,
Your site, your perogative. I happen to believe that by allowing people to see the sort of comments people like Dana Nuccitelli make, you serve the purpose of marginalizing his ilk. One advantage of “hate speech” is it makes easy to identify the haters.
On the other hand, it isn’t as if any one who regularly reads this blog or who has ever ventured over to Skeptical Science doesn’t already know everything one needs to about Dana Nuccitelli’s behavior and I can see why you might be tired of his brand of crap. It is perhaps perverse on my part to watch him make an ass of himself.
Phil,
How’s this for “bracketing future conditions”:
Linear Trend 1984-2012
Hansen’s temperature projections:
Scenario A: 3.37 deg C / century
Scenario B: 2.87 deg C / century
Scenario C: 2.06 deg C / century
Observed trend:
GISTEMP : 1.75 deg C / century
As you say above… I think it’s very clear and borne out by the data.
And here are those data in excel format in case you want to check my math:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/78507292/Hansen%20%281988%29%20Scenario%20B%20vs.%20GISTEMP.xlsx
And for a bonus treat, the spreadsheet also includes a statistical analysis of the annual differentials between Scenario B and GISTEMP from 1984-2012 showing a difference with ~86% significance.
Enjoy.
Phil. says:
June 18, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Really, I think it’s very clear and borne out by the data: e.g.
Hansen’s projected numbers for CO2 in 2011 :
– Scenario A: 393.74 ppmv
– Scenario B: 390.99 ppmv
– Scenario C: 367.81 ppmv
and observed average concentration for 2011:
– Mauna Loa: 391.57 ppmv
You contend that Hansen merely “[d]id…what he intended i.e. to bracket the future conditions, yes” — future conditions, plural. What he actually did was postulate a series of “if/then” scenarios, but if you consider Scenario A the upper bracket for future conditions (if CO2=x, then temperature=y) and Scenario C the lower bracket, then “it’s very clear and borne out by that data” that he failed to establish a bracket for future conditions.
A bracket is supposed to enclose something. While the observed CO2 concentration from Mauna Loa falls within the upper bracket (Scenario A) the observed temperature falls *outside* the lower bracket (Scenario C).
If it was solely Hansen’s intention to bracket future conditions, he didn’t even get that right.
Gunga Din says:
June 18, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Corection: “when it do what ” should be “when it doesn’t do what”.
===============================================================
I can’t read. I can’t type. What can I say?
You’ve got the same problem I do — you think faster than you type.
Fortunately, I still move faster than I think, otherwise I’d have been delivered to the coroner quite a while ago…
What if Chinas total annual emissions is 20% higher than previously believed? If Chinas annual emission is 20% higher, then the global emission is 5% higher and then the global emissions since 1988 would be much higher! Is there anybody that can do the math with the new numbers from China?
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/china-emissions-queried-20120611-2065w.html