Guest Post by Ira Glickstein.
The graphic from RealClimate asks “How well did Hansen et al (1988) do?” They compare actual temperature measurements through 2012 (GISTEMP and HadCRUT4) with Hansen’s 1988 Scenarios “A”, “B”, and “C”. The answer (see my annotations) is “Are you kidding?”
HANSEN’S SCENARIOS
The three scenarios and their predictions are defined by Hansen 1988 as follows
“Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, …” Hansen’s predicted temperature increase, from 1988 to 2012, is 0.9 ⁰C, OVER FOUR TIMES HIGHER than the actual increase of 0.22 ⁰C.
“scenario B assumes a reduced linear growth of trace gases, …” Hansen’s predicted temperature increase, from 1988 to 2012, is 0.75 ⁰C, OVER THREE TIMES HIGHER than the actual increase of 0.22 ⁰C.
“scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.” Hansen’s predicted temperature increase, from 1988 to 2012, is 0.29 ⁰C, ONLY 31% HIGHER than the actual increase of 0.22 ⁰C.
So, only Scenario C, which “assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions” comes close to the truth.
THERE HAS BEEN NO ACTUAL “CURTAILMENT OF TRACE GAS EMISSIONS”
As everyone knows, the Mauna Loa measurements of atmospheric CO2 proves that there has NOT BEEN ANY CURTAILMENT of trace gas emissions. Indeed, the rapid increase of CO2 continues unabated.
What does RealClimate make of this situation?
“… while this simulation was not perfect, it has shown skill in that it has out-performed any reasonable naive hypothesis that people put forward in 1988 (the most obvious being a forecast of no-change). … The conclusion is the same as in each of the past few years; the models are on the low side of some changes, and on the high side of others, but despite short-term ups and downs, global warming continues much as predicted.”
Move along, folks, nothing to see here, everything is OK, “global warming continues much as predicted.”
CONCLUSIONS
Hansen 1988 is the keystone of the entire CAGW Enterprise, the theory that Anthropogenic (human-caused) Global Warming will lead to a near-term Climate Catastrophe. RealClimate, the leading Warmist website, should be congratulated for publishing a graphic that so clearly debunks CAGW and calls into question all the Climate models put forth by the official Climate Team (the “hockey team”).
Hansen’s 1988 models are based on a Climate Sensitivity (predicted temperature increase given a doubling of CO2) of 4.2 ⁰C. The actual CO2 increase since 1988 is somewhere between Hansen’s Scenario A (“continued exponential trace gas growth”) and Scenario B (“reduced linear growth of trace gases”), so, based on the failure of Scenarios A and B, namely their being high by a factor of three or four, it would be reasonable to assume that Climate Sensitivity is closer to 1 ⁰C than 4 ⁰C.
As for RealClimate’s conclusion that Hansen’s simulation “out-performed any reasonable naive hypothesis that people put forward in 1988 (the most obvious being a forecast of no-change)”, they are WRONG. Even a “naive” prediction of no change would have been closer to the truth (low by 0.22 ⁰C) than Hansen’s Scenarios A (high by +0.68 ⁰C) and B (high by 0.53 ⁰C)!
Looks like Hansen shouldnt be relied upon to pick this weeks winning lotto ticket.
Compare to Leona Marshall Libby’s 1979 prediciton
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/climate-scientists-who-were-right-30-years-ago/
It is claimed, by the climate-deranged (my new word replacement for warmists / alarmists h/t Peter Foster ) that CFC’s should be considered as a greenhouse gas reduction that took place and therefore scenario B should be the scenario to compare to.
Thanks, Ira.
I need some help graphing it,
but I project that Hansen has a greater chance of being arrested again (a positive sloped line)
than he does having one of his projection/predictions be right (a negative sloped line).
Although, once his projection of boiling oceans occurs, all bets are off.
🙂
Lets face it the original graph was pure propaganda. The point was that CO2 was likely to be added at Scenario A rates. The point of the graph was to make Scenario A look scary so that we should address CO2. Looking at Scenario B if we got sensible about CO2 it wouldn’t make appreciable difference as the line is almost as scary as Scenario A.
Scenario C was only included to show that if the world went back to an agrarian lifestyle and all SUVs were recycle for diversity-powered scooters we could stop the scary lines happening.
Well we didn’t stop. The SUVs are still here and the world is still rapidly industrialising and we are below scenario C.
So the propaganda didn’t work, the calculations didn’t work, the temperature increase didn’t work, the CO2/Temp relationship didn’t work, the IPCC didn’t work, carbon sequestration didn’t work, CO2 offsets didn’t work, the vilification of Humanity’s progress didn’t work, the peer review STILL doesn’t work (otherwise why are they still talking about this graph rather than quietly recycling it as diversity-pressed parchment) and finally … the economics didn’t work.
Did anything that came out of these claims actually ever work? Anything? Ever?
I didn’t make the claims and even I am embarrassed for them. What a waste of a life’s work.
it has shown skill in that it has out-performed any reasonable naive hypothesis that people put forward in 1988
=============
hysterical…..so they admit to how bad this “science” is
If Hansen had known then what we know now, he might have made a bang-on 100% accurate prediction. He might have gotten the sensitivity right and the physics too.
But no one would have listened, no one would have cared
Regarding the effect of the clouds, this is obvious for us living far north, especially during the winter period. Others may not … (like well known AGW’ers …)
@ur momisugly Lutherwu “Thanks Ira, for presenting this info from Real Climate’s website, I never go there. It’s an unhealthy place to visit, what with blood pressure, and all.”
Me too, Luther. I get so angry and frustrated it’s not healthy. And I want to live long enough to see these guys fall from grace, to stretch the word “grace” all out of shape. I’m 62. Another 3-5 years ought to do it I hope.
“amoorhouse says: March 20, 2013 at 8:19 am Did anything that came out of these claims actually ever work? Anything? Ever?”
Yes. One was actually very, very successful.
That may be the only real hockey-stick in climate.
Anthony,
Scenarios A, B, and C make assumptions about the CO2 increase in the atmosphere. It would be worth while to show how those assumptions would Plot-out on a time vs CO2 Concentration scale for us not as technically inclined.
Scenario A, I would guess, would be closest to the actual Mauna Loa plot you presented ( Would it be more curved upwards?). Would Scenario B be a straight line starting in 1988? If so what slope would it be? Would Scenario C be a horizontal straight line starting in the year 2000? If so at what level would it be?
Thanks.
squid2112 says:
March 20, 2013 at 7:31 am
Climate sensitivity to CO2 is exactly 0C !….period
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
There certainly is some observational evidence supporting that conclusion. For example:
1. If one looks at the 33 years of satellite data then there would appear to be no first order correlation between temperature rise and the rise in CO2 emissions.. Unless the SuperEl Nino of 1998 was in some way caused by CO2, and to my knowledge, no one suggests that it was, then that one off event should be excluded from considering wither and to what extent there is a temperature response to rising CO2 emissions. Accordingly, excluding that one off event which brought about a step change (not a gradual linear increase), one sees that the temperature was flat between 1979 and 1997 and flat between 1999 to 2012. In otherwords temperatures have remained flat for 33 years and there is no first order correlation between temperature and rising CO2 levels in the satellite data. Thus the issue then becomes whether there is some second order correlation if one were to take into account the negative effects of aerosol emissions and.or variance in TSI and/or cloudiness and incoming solar insolation. The problem is that we do not have accurate data on these so any adjustments to be made are somewhat speculative. That said, it appears that global SO2 emissions are no greater today than they were in 1979 and if anything they are less. We are frequently told that variations in TSI are minimal and insignificant. That being the case neither of these two factors can be masking the warming (if any) that is otherwise brought about by the rise in CO2 emissions over the period. The satellite data suggests that at current levels of CO2 any sensitivity to CO2 is so small that it cannot be seen within the noisy satellite temperature record.
2. If one considers the global temperature anomaly around 1880-55 then according to Hadcrut4, it was about -0.4 degC. Today (about 2000 onwards) it is around +0.5degC. On its face a change of about 0.9degC. During this time CO2 has risen by about 50% from about 280ppm to about 400ppm which is approximately 1/2 a forcing. However, adjustment needs to be made to take account of volcanic activity. The Team suggest that Krakatoa depressed global temperatures by about 1.2degC. If that figure is right (ie., if it is the correct forcing for such extreme volcanic activity -which I personally doubt) then but for Krakatoa, one would have expected global temperatures in the period 1883 to 1886 to be some 1.2degC higher than the -0.4degC anomaly figure, ie., the appropriate temperature anomaly for the period say 1883/86 would have been +0.8degC. It is materaial that that is higher than the Hadcrut anomaly of today. Accordingly, once one takes account of volcanic forcings, and makes the necessary adjustment for those forcings, it would appear that temperature anomalies in around the 1883/86 period would be higher than today!! Thus notwithstanding a 1/2 forcing (ie., an increase in CO2 levels from about 280ppm to about 400ppm), there is no observable increase in global temperature anomaly!! Again, this suggests that at around the 300ppm CO2 level, climate sensitivity is around zero.
[Richard Verney: Good to “see” you here again. Regarding your statement that “cliimate sensitivity is around zero”, I agree. 0.25 ⁰C IS AROUND ZERO, and even my high estimate of 1 ⁰C is way closer to zero than Hansen 1988’s 4.2 ⁰C or the IPCC’s 3 ⁰C. Ira]
Tall dave But gavin he will be retired by then (~20 years no warming) and will not give a @ur momisugly@@ur momisugly@ hell probably become an ardent denier in his old age LOL
CO2 growth is close to A, but actual temperatures are less than C, which proves that Hansen was correct?
Do these guys wear special glasses that let them see things that aren’t there?
Ira,
I have taken the liberty of suggesting a change to one of your comments as follows. I am making the change because use of the terminology ‘greenhouse effect’ is not and never was scientifically appropripriate.
Note: My changes are in bold.
Again note that my changes are in bold.
Your article is much appreciated. Thank you.
John
John Whitman: Thanks for your comment and your suggestion. Of course I agree that the warming effect of H2O, CO2 and other gases in the Atmosphere are very different from what goes on in an actual physical greenhouse, where the walls and roof primarily prevent loss of heat by convection rather than by outgoing long wave radiation. However, this mis-analogy has become established and, to communicate clearly with others, I choose to go along with established terminology. However, I try to say Atmospheric (to make it clear I am not talking about an actual physical greenhouse) and I put “scare” quotes around the words “Greenhouse Effect”. Ira]
Not only Hansen but the IPCC have failed. How much failure can we take? We have waited decades and there is a divergence. The theory exaggerates warming and is essentially a pile of batshit.
What if there was a rapid curtailment after 1988, Hansen would be seen as a superstar scientist. Instead, there has been none and we have hit the target. Any reasonable scientist, after raising so much alarm, would say they were wrong and go into hiding. Instead, Hansen is even angrier that ever and is prepared to get arrested over this trace gas.
Finally, we have hit below scenario C so the goal has been met, the panic is over, let’s disband CRU, IPCC and fire Hansen immediately.
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
March 20, 2013 at 8:07 am
———————————————————-
Congratulations on the clear and concise presentation.
However, when you say in your comment: “If Atmospheric CO2 had zero effect, the Earth Surface temperatures would be over 30 ⁰C cooler, because the Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect” is real” you are attributing the entire Greenhouse Effect to CO2, whereas it is dominated by water vapor.
CO2 has a narrow absorption band, and it must plateau by 300 ppm concentration, since there is a CO2 sensitivity to temperature. If there were a significant temperature sensitivity to CO2 above 300 ppm, there would be a positive feedback that shouldn’t stop until essentially all the massive stores of surficial carbon returned to the atmosphere as CO2, with global temperature tens of degrees warmer then ever inferred from the entire ice-core record.
[R Taylor: You are correct that the primary “Greenhouse gas” is H2O. However, some climate scientists have suggested that, lacking CO2 (and/or other gases that do not precipitate and freeze at 0 ⁰C), the first strong Ice Age would have caused our planet to become “snowball Earth” where all the H2O would become snow and ice, which have a high albedo (reflectiveness to short wave Solar radiation). They claim that “snowball Earth”, lacking any appreciable H2O vapor in the Atmosphere, and reflecting much of the incoming Solar radiation, might remain in that frozen state. It was the unfrozen CO2, and other unfrozen trace gases in the Atmosphere, that allowed the Atmosphereic “Greenhouse Effect” to be effective and pull Earth out of the “snowball”. I believe that theory is credible, and, if so, CO2 and other non-H2O gases are responsible for the Earth not being a “snowball” and allowing the H2O to return to liquid and gaseous form, with the result being at least 30 ⁰C warmer than it would be otherwise. Ira]
The RC guys are funny.
They can’t even be straight about what he predicted. The fair way would be to show both, but instead they often say that since methane did not rise as much as predicted and because they now agree that the median increase for CO2 doubling is 2.8 to 3.0 C instead of 4.2 that if you make those changes it is not as bad and he was “reasonably accurate”. Well, he did not use 2.8 C and they believe that in many ways CO2 is a bigger problem than methane and they were PREDICTING that methane would rise, that was part of it as well.
So to fairly test what Hansen said in 1988 you do as Ira did. Then after that you can say, well, if we had made the prediction in 2004 or 2013 we would not have been as wrong as Hansen back in 1988. Which sounds kind of lame and explains why they choose the more misleading way.
1 – Actually, the average temperature would be about the same. It’s just that we would, literally, bake during the day and freeze at night. The surface conditions would be like those on the moon. If you apply a low pass filter (ie. dig down into the moon far enough) the temperature is a comfortable 23 deg. C. http://www.lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Lunar_Temperature
2 – The most powerful greenhouse gas, by far, is water vapour. Attributing the whole greenhouse effect to CO2 is wrong. Note that the adiabatic lapse rate is hugely influenced by moisture and not at all influenced by CO2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
The lefty mind, literally, can not contain the two concepts “Real world scenario is close to Hansen A scenario” and “Real world temps are close to Hansen C” at the same time. That this is a fact, is no accident. It is the consequence of deliberate interference in the natural development of the cognitive ability of our children and has been going on since at least the 30’s. The Marxist architect mind is constructed of independent nodes each with its own reference, set of definitions, and parsers. Only one can be active at a time. This is one of the two reasons why the trolls can not read a post or comment without completely missing what it is saying, re-interpreting it to conform to their ideological preconceptions.
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
March 20, 2013 at 8:07 am
“…If Atmospheric CO2 had zero effect, the Earth Surface temperatures would be over 30 ⁰C cooler, because the Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect” is real….”
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
If, over the course of the next 10 or so years, global temperatures do not increase, then there will be 2 obvious contenders as to the reason why there has been no increase. namely:
1 At current levels of CO2, saturation has already been reached such that sensitivity is now so close to zero that it cannot be measured; or
2. The basic physics upon which AGW is built is fundamentally flawed.
You are a brave man ruling out the second.
I strongly suspect that if the temperature haitus continues and there is no rise in temperature anomaly by early 2020, we will be seeing many papers dealing with the basic physics and these papers will, inter alia, question whether “..the Earth Surface temperatures would be over 30 ⁰C cooler..” but for so called greenhouse effect.
Watch this space and bring along the pop corn.
Let me do a re-write for ya.
Gavin puts the best political spin masters to shame.
If you can’t predict future climate change then you don’t really know why the climate changes. If you don’t really know why climate changes then you can’t introduce the term “climate sensitivity” and try to estimate its value. You can only say “I don’t know”.