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.
G. Karst says:
June 15, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Thank goodness we did nothing and we don’t need to evacuate Canada. Now can we have a refund on AGW measures considering CO2 seems to have zero actual effects to GMT. Hansen was just another religious prophet nutcase predicting the end is near. GK
=================================================================
As long as they caught on to the fact that cars generally have the right-of-way in parking lots, they’d be quite safe in the US. (As long as we could send our loonies to Canada first!)
dana1981, when will the temperature start to climb again and what is your conclusion if the global temperature drops the next 10-15 years or so?
http://climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
Let’s try this in a different way. Hansen’s defenders are stating that he wasn’t wrong because the reduction of other Greenhouse gases compensated for the rise in Co2. Therefore there is no reason to try to reduce Co2 because we stoped the rise in temps by other means. I guess Co2 isn’t as important a greenhouse gas as thwy’ve been saying.
Gras Albert says: June 15, 2012 at 12:56 pm
— — —
Time for equilibrium is a factor you have not used in your analysis. This appears to be an unknown quantity and is a fudge factor used to claim that the missing heat is in the pipeline. I suppose one day when CO2 levels do stop rising, it will be slightly easier to estimate what this value might be.
And he hasn’t got any better since then.
We seem to be on the “stopped” / stagnant growth track. Makes sense. Stagnant fecundity, stagnant economy. That means stagnant waste heat, stagnant albedo modification and oh yeah, the GHG thingey. The real horror will not be Malthusian. It will be something quite the opposite. Free fall.
A couple of further observations. The two standard defences of the Hansen 1988 prediction are:
(1) Other greenhouse gases did not rise at the levels forecast by Hansen
(2) CO2 has not increased at the level predicted by Hansen’s scenario (a)
I have in the past researched both claims. For (1) the IPCC does describe the contribution of various greenhouse gases to estimated warming. The total of all other gases combined amounts to about 10% of the contribution of CO2 if my memory is correct. (If I am wrong here, please refresh my memory). It was, anyway, a very minor component of the forecast. If you want to be as fair as possible to Hansen, then reduce the 150% over-estimate by around 10%
Regarding (2) there has been one academic claim I found, that the global financial crisis caused an economic downturn and this was used as an explanation for why the planet did not warm as expected. However, the majority of other studies I have looked at seem to be in agreement that CO2 increases have been larger than originally anticipated.
“The IEA assumed in 2008 that future emissions would grow from 2005 to 2030 at 1.5% per year. Actually, from 2005-2010 emissions increased by 2.4% per year (data from PBL in this PDF). The 1990 to 2010 average was a 1.9% increase per year, and 2009 to 2010 was a whopping 5.8% increase.”
http://www.iea.org/etp/explore/#d.en.27418
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/lowballing-carbon-dioxide-emissions.html
There is no basis for the claim that emissions have been lower than expected or predicted, especially recently.
The final point to observe is that the last time I checked, even Real Climate had given up on defending the 1988 Hansen forecast. Those who still do, one might describe as the last bastion of “true believers”. For this group, observational data will never get in the way of their passionate convictions.
dana1981 says:
June 15, 2012 at 1:23 pm
Looks like the guy has managed to publish a lot of peer eviewed papers though.
steven mosher says:
June 15, 2012 at 11:32 am
============================================
You forgot a couple of things. 1. Actual emissions were higher then senario A. 2. What about natural forcing and warming via ocean currents, and solar factors, etc?
What I see is an enormous amount of rubbishing details to try to prove that people who were completely wrong were slightly less completely wrong than claimed.
Which is all a dodge to avoid the “completely wrong” part.
When I was a kid, I was told we’d all live in a waterless toxic wasteland or be frozen over by now. By people who were completely wrong.
If we had heeded their cries, we would have wrecked ourselves trying to avoid a disaster that wasn’t even *plausible*.
And here we are again. Meet the new scare, same as the old scare.
IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. That’s what matters.
dana1981 says:
June 15, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Thanks REP. As someone with an astrophysics degree myself, allow me to apologize on behalf of the astrophysics field
>>>>>>>>
Wow! You speak for all the astrophycists in the world? You must be a VERY inportant person, Tell me please, were you elected to this position? Or self appointed?
Dana1981 is strong on passion but seems weak on facts. None of this claims (accusations?) include citations. I do note that he offered a new explanation for why the Hansen forecast is still possibly valid:
“4) Ignoring all other forcings (i.e. aerosols)”
Please pay attention to “Fig. Aerosol optical depth” in the link below, which shows that aerosol optical depth has decreased steadily since 1988, which is the opposite to what is needed if the above explanation made sense.
http://web.me.com/uriarte/Earths_Climate/Appendix_3._The_climatic_effects_of_natural_atmospheric_aerosols.html
Dana1981
“2) Thinking that a ~2 ppm annual CO2 increase is 2.5% of ~390 ppm (arithmetic fail!)”
Wow, what an epic fail for claiming epic fail on this.
The 2.5% increase does not refer to total atmospheric CO2, but to an increase in human CO2 emissions. Since human CO2 emissions are dwarfed by natural emissions, this does not translate into a 2.5% increase in actual atmospheric CO2 content. It’s way smaller than that. Hansen at least understood this, but you seem blissfully ignorant of these simple facts. Where did you get your degree? I have no degree at all, but I spotted that looper in an instant. And sure, everyone makes mistakes, but not usually when claiming that other people have made obvious and stupid epic fails!
I appreciate the entertainment value of this site more and more as time goes on.
The timing of Hansen’s “Global climate change, according to the prediction of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies” is interesting. It was 1988, two years after the Challenger space shuttle disaster and the postponement of further shuttle flights. NASA were in crisis and no longer sure of their mission.
In August 1987 former astronaut Dr Sally Ride wrote a report for NASA entitled “NASA Leadership and America’s Future in Space”:
“The U.S. civilian space program is now at a crossroads…in the aftermath of the Challenger accident, reviews of our space program made its shortcomings starkly apparent. The United States’ role as the leader of space-faring nations came into serious question.
“Mission to Planet Earth is an initiative to understand our home planet, how forces shape and affect its environment, how that environment is changing, and how those changes will affect us.
“Global-scale changes of uncertain impact, ranging from an increase in the atmospheric warming gases, carbon dioxide and methane, to a hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic, to important variations in vegetation covers and in coastlines, have already been observed with existing measurement capabilities. The potentially major consequences, either detrimental or beneficial, suggest an urgent need to understand these variations.
“We currently lack the ability to foresee changes in the Earth System, and their subsequent effects on the planet’s physical, economic, and social climate. But that could change; this initiative would revolutionize our ability to characterize our home planet, and would be the first step toward developing predictive models of the global environment.
“Space-based observations would also be coordinated with ground-based experiments and the data from all observations would be integrated by an essential component of this initiative: a versatile, state-of-the-art information management system. This tool is critical to data analysis and numerical modelling, and would enable the integration of all observational data and the development of diagnostic and predictive Earth System models.
“This global observational system would be designed to operate for decades, serviced either by astronauts or robotic systems to ensure long life and to provide the continuing data collection, integration, and analysis required by this initiative.
“NASA’s responsibilities would include the information management system and platforms and experiments described previously. Most important, NASA would also provide the supporting technology, space transportation, space support services, and much of the scientific leadership.”
http://history.nasa.gov/riderep/cover.htm
Then the following year, in June 1988, Hansen testified before a Senate sub-committee about global warming and “sounded the alarm with such authority and force that the issue of an overheating world has suddenly moved to the forefront of public concern“. as reported by The Times-News August 30 1988.
“At a 46-nation Conference on the Changing Atmosphere in Toronto shortly after Hansen’s testimony, scientists and policy makers urged development of energy consumption policies that would drastically reduce carbon emissions.
“One of his major projects (after joining NASA) was the spacecraft study of Venusian atmosphere, where a rampant greenhouse effect has produced surface temperatures hot enough to melt lead
“He recalled that on previous occasions the Office of Budget Responsibility, which reviews official statements that have implications for the budget, had forced him to delete from the text any recommendations…rather than remove such statements he testified as a private citizen….not as a government employee.
“NASA is an agency without a mission,” Oppenheimer said. “If it was smart, NASA would treat Hansen as a star. Here is a problem and a mission that the public might really get behind.”
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ukgaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YiYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6677,7151240&dq=james+hansen+1988&hl=en
RC update 2012
We noted in 2007, that Scenario B was running a little high compared with the forcings growth (by about 10%) using estimated forcings up to 2003 (Scenario A was significantly higher, and Scenario C was lower)…
As we stated before, the Hansen et al ‘B’ projection is running warm compared to the real world (exactly how much warmer is unclear).
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
Is it really unclear after another 8 eights years of observations? When in 2007 they also said,
“Maybe with another 10 years of data, this distinction will be possible. However, a model with a very low sensitivity, say 1 deg C, would have fallen well below the observed trends.”
Perhaps they just don’t want to say. Is this evidence for a low sensitivity?
conradg – you are correct, my mistake. That’s 1 error for me and 5 for Solheim.
Another Solheim error – Scenario A only projects a 0.7°C increase from 1988 to 2012, yet Solheim claims Hansen was wrong by 1.9°C?
Wrong.
Gunga Din says:
June 15, 2012 at 1:40 pm
> Kelvin Vaughan says:
> June 15, 2012 at 12:22 pm
>> which is a whopping 150% wrong
No, he’s 60% wrong – see my 10:55 am comment. 60% of 1.5 ° C is 0.9 ° C, and his projection was 0.9 ° C too high.
>>You can’t be more than 100% wrong!
> ======================================================
> Yet he managed it anyway! 😎
Yes you can be more that 100% wrong, and he would have been if observations showed cooling.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/15/james-hansens-climate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-150-wrong/#comment-1010012
KR says:
June 15, 2012 at 9:50 am
Seriously?
You mean to say that the observed temperature line is anything at all like the scenario B line? Sorry, I just reject that. You can wiggle all you like, it is just not comparable.
@dana1981
“conradg – you are correct, my mistake. That’s 1 error for me and 5 for Solheim.”
============================
Do you want to itemise the ‘errors’ that you think you see here? Because all I can see from your postings are speculations/opinions without citations.
Although I do agree with you, that I can’t see how you get to a 1.9C difference, unless possibly you take the difference from the actual temperature at a particular point in time rather than the trend, then you try to estimate the presumed model output from the actual exponential CO2 increase. (The real difference is closer to 1C.) Neither tactic is fair though, and plays into the hands of apologists. I would expect (and have seen) that sort of behaviour from Real Climate or Skeptical Science, but sceptics should be held to a higher standard.
Anyone quoting Hansen’s numbers should use the actual numbers (especially dana1981 for once).
Temps (1951 to 1980 baseperiod) (Note Scenario B is +1.065 for 2012)
http://www.realclimate.org/data/scen_ABC_temp.data
GHG assumptions (Scenario A had CO2 at 393 ppm for 2011 while B was at 391 ppm – Actual was 390.44):
http://www.realclimate.org/data/H88_scenarios.dat
Total Forcing (the increase from 1984 to 2011 in Scenario B is nearly identical to the number the IPCC is using as the actual forcing change for the upcoming AR5)
http://www.realclimate.org/data/H88_scenarios_eff.dat
Bookmark these for next time.
Re my last post – The actual observed temps are even significantly below the scenario where we stopped producing CO2 entirely in 2000
Another error, maybe due to an incorrect translation – the temperature plotted in black is not a 5-year rolling average. It is annual data, from HadCRUT3 (which has of course been replaced by HadCRUT4), as near as I can tell.
Here’s a relevant paper. (I think there was a WUWT thread on it, back in the day):
Tthe Farmers Almanac comes in at number One for accuracy with Hansen as a distant second place getter and the BOM way behind, trailing the field, still trying to stoke up it’s ‘barbecue summer’.