Happy 30th Birthday Gorebal Warming!

Guest drive-by by David Middleton

Well… Happy 30th birthday, 3 days early…

AP Was There: The age of climate change begins


On June 23, 1988, a top NASA scientist told Congress and the world that global warming had arrived. NASA scientist James Hansen predicted that 1988 would be the world’s hottest year on record, thanks to the burning of fossil fuels that released heat-trapping gases.

The Associated Press is republishing a version of its report on the testimony to mark the 30th anniversary.


WASHINGTON (AP) — The “greenhouse effect” global warming of the earth is here, but the current drought and heat wave over much of the United States can’t be blamed on it, a scientist told a Senate panel Thursday.

However, similar heat waves and droughts can be expected much more often as a result of future warming, said James E. Hansen, a climatologist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.

Hansen told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee there is only a 1 percent chance that he is wrong in blaming rising temperatures around the world on the buildup of manmade gases in the atmosphere.

Blah, blah, blah…


ABC Snooze

Hansen’s fabulously wrong 1988 climate model.  The red curve is the 5-yr average of GISTEMP.
Scenario A is “business as usual.” Scenario C is where humans basically undiscover fire.


Update #1

Updated GISTEMP 5-yr plot…

Update #2

The standard Warmunist misdirection: “You’re not using the same temperature data Hansen used.”

GISTEMP, the current GISS temperature product, almost exactly matches Hansen’s 1988 “observed” temperature trend, even at 1-yr resolution…

GISTEMP barely touched Scenario B during the 2016-2017 El Niño. It’s currently headed back down to Scenario C, the undiscovery of fire.

Update #3

Here’s how UAH v 6.0 vs Hansen et al., 1988…



Hansen, J., I. Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, S. Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone, 1988: Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model. J. Geophys. Res., 93, 9341-9364, doi:10.1029/JD093iD08p09341



0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 19, 2018 5:24 am

Depending on your views concerning religion, the most successful con in human history.

Reply to  mehere
June 19, 2018 5:53 am

Certainly in nominal dollars and possibly inflation adjusted also. If all religions evolve into cons, then this one would rank in the top 10.

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  mehere
June 19, 2018 6:13 am

Forget about religion, Hansen is simply the greatest American traitor since Walter Cronkite’s Tet Offensive ‘speculation’ in 1968 or perhaps even Benedict Arnold.

Reply to  Komrade Kuma
June 19, 2018 6:56 am

Benedict Arnold was a war hero before he became a traitor. The same cannot be said about Hansen …

Caligula Jones
Reply to  mehere
June 20, 2018 6:29 am

The Church of Scienceolgy.

Can’t wait to see Gore in an admiral’s uniform that makes him look like a doorman at a mediocre hotel.

June 19, 2018 5:35 am

Well, the really sad part is the historical and current temperature records are so corrupted we will really never know exactly where we stand.

I’m guessing we will need to use fallback comparisons like first/last frost dates, snow and ice coverage and how much your wife complains about the heat or cold to get a true picture.

Reply to  rbabcock
June 19, 2018 6:20 am

Historical records are so poor, that even if we had pristine records, we still wouldn’t know where we stood.

June 19, 2018 5:36 am

You know…..the theory of CO2 is over 100 years old…..we need to celebrate it’s centennial

BTW…do you guys realize they haven’t been able to prove it in over 100 years

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  David Middleton
June 19, 2018 5:42 am

Or Lysenko Day…

Reply to  Louis Hooffstetter
June 19, 2018 9:18 am


Reply to  Latitude
June 19, 2018 7:13 am


Yea they have, just not quite as they expected, with global greening at 14% in 35 years of sat obs being the only empirical manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2.

Did they predict that?

Why no!

Not only have all their predictions of cataclysm failed, they failed to predict the most obvious benefit of increased atmospheric CO2.

So now they’re into negative figures as far as predictions go.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Ric Werme
June 19, 2018 6:38 am

Thanks Ric.
Quoting from the above article, Dr Theon said:
“Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists…”

Looks like things haven’t change much in the last 9 or 10 years. I don’t remember when Congress started throwing money at Climate Change, but that gravy train had already corrupted lot of (most of?) Academia by then.

Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 5:45 am

“Hansen’s fabulously wrong 1988 climate model.”
Hansen’s prediction was remarkably accurate. Of his scenarios, we fell between B and C. So even the graph shown affirms his model. But then again, he wasn’t predicting Gistemp land/ocean, which was not yet invented. He was predicting his “Met stations only” model, as shown on his original graph.

Here, from a 2016 post here, is a plot of annual Gistemp (brown) and the “Met stations only” index (blue)superimposed on his original plot. At the source, you can try out other datasets.

comment image

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 5:56 am

I guess it’s a good time to review the scenarios. From https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha02700w.html (Hansen 1988):

Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes a reduced linear linear [sic] growth of trace gases, and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.

The only scenario worth comparing against is Scenario A. Anyone who suggests scenario B or C should automatically lose two credibility points.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Ric Werme
June 19, 2018 6:08 am

The test of a scenario is what actually happened. Hansen’s actual numbers for gas concentrations are available. They tell you what scenario was followed. There is no other basis.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 6:21 am

He got that wrong too?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Ric Werme
June 19, 2018 6:33 am

Got what wrong?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 7:32 am


Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 7:34 am

Read again Nick,

“…scenario B assumes a reduced linear linear [sic] growth of trace gases, and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.”

Current CO2 trend fits Scenario A best, while Temperature is between B and C, mostly near C.

Hansen’s prediction are Waaaay off!

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 9:02 am

The predictions (estimates?) of future gas concentrations. E.g. CH4 ranging from 2.78 ppm (Scen A) to 1.916 (Scen C). Actual: 1.83.

CH4, while possibly potent, isn’t a big contributor to the Greenhouse contribution, IIRC.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Ric Werme
June 19, 2018 3:35 pm

“The predictions (estimates?) “
No, scenarios aren’t predictions. Again, scenarios are where you guess what might happen in the future, where you have no way of currently knowing. That’s why there are several. In fact, methane concentrations did undergo a long hiatus, for reasons still not well understood. Hansen is presenting the results of a model which tells you that if gases do this, the climate will do this. It doesn’t claim to tell you what gases will do.

However, FWIW, CO2 followed scenario B quite closely.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2018 2:31 am

Nick, I actually agree that the linear growth is pretty much what happened. But all your excuses, I don’t like them.

The first thing is to notice that Hansen’s high end temp is 1.5K above 1960. This is at least 50%, may be 100% too much. When we think about how little has been done that would affect temperatures, Hansen turns out to be a doomer.

Note Hansen’s temp scale is not “met stations”, it says ‘annual global mean temperature change’ (and it hides annual changes to make a strong-looking claim). If you say GISS shows different numbers, that is only because global mean temperature is a fuzzy concept to start with. Which tells us a lot about illogical alarm that was going on. Hansen was fearing on 1.5K from 1960 by 2020. We could have 0.8K, of course it is not easy to say the 2020 climatic average before 2035.

Note that scenario A is really supposed to be “business as usual”, that is, the basis for scaremongering, and C is supposed to be the we do our best scenario. That we tracked B-emissions and missed temps in A so clearly is not because UN has been doing good work. It is because the high end scenarios have always been unrealistic and have only been created for political purposes.

Now as the last El Niño dissipated, the temp will end up pretty near the scenario C, that was Hansen’s target. There’s no reason to panic. We can still watch another 30 years for signs of acceleration. Slow linear rise is tolerable, and if it were fast, we couldn’t do anything sensible anyway. Solar power is a first-world non-solution to people dying in difficult-to-reach places to ordinary diseases when lacking just clean water, working agriculture and some modern inventions like DDT.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Hugs
June 20, 2018 2:46 am

“The first thing is to notice that Hansen’s high end temp is 1.5K above 1960.”
Yes. And if Scenario A had unfolded, we might well be there. But it didn’t.

“Note Hansen’s temp scale is not “met stations”, it says ‘annual global mean temperature change’”
Yes. “met stations” is all there was in 1988. Use of SST came years later. Hansen was using the index he described in Hansen and Lebedeff 1987. That was Gistemp for some years; it was called GISS Ts, and still is. Later came Ts+SST, now mostly cited.

“Note that scenario A is really supposed to be “business as usual”, that is, the basis for scaremongering”
That is what folks here like saying. But the fact is that Hansen calculated three scenarios, and in fact said that B seems most plausible.

“That we tracked B-emissions and missed temps in A so clearly is not because UN has been doing good work.”
The reason is totally irrelevant to the success of the prediction. The scenario that happened was B-, and that is the projection to test.

Reply to  Hugs
June 20, 2018 3:40 am

When we think about how little has been done that would affect temperatures

Actually, quite a lot has been done. The Montreal Protocol meant major CFCs halted their incline and are now contributing a small negative forcing every year. Hansen’s scenario A was based on what would happen without such controls.

That scenario also envisaged similar growth of other industrial man-made greenhouse gases. This has actually happened to a great extent – there are now dozens (maybe hundreds) of commonly used industrial gases – but the forcing associated with this growth is less than assumed by the scenario. In large part this is because gases are now, thanks to scientists and the UN, routinely rated by the chemical industry in terms of their Global Warming Potential and there is a clear incentive to develop gases with less future forcing potential – e.g. by engineering a shorter atmospheric lifetime.

On methane, carbon monoxide controls have been introduced across much of the developed world. Carbon monoxide reacts with the hydroxyl radical (OH), which is the primary sink for methane in the atmosphere (reaction oxidising to CO2), so elevated levels of carbon monoxide would have reduced probability of methane oxidisation by competing for the same resource, ensuring a longer average atmospheric lifetime for methane. Same is true for controls on SO2 emissions, which react with OH to produce sulfate aerosols. So, these controls would have acted to reduce atmospheric methane growth.

Many countries have introduced policies against gas flaring practices, which would have also reduced methane growth.

On CO2, it is perhaps true that little has been done. But then, Scenario A 2017 CO2 concentration is 407.9ppm, compared with the actual Mauna Loa 2017 average of 406.5ppm, which is remarkably close.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 7:57 am

Mr. Strokes:
Hansen looked at the gradual warming in the
past 150 years, and predicted it would continue.

That did not take any talent.
Anyone can predict ‘more of the same’.
Even a village idiot.

Predicting ‘more of the same’,
and being generally correct,
is FAR from proof that one
is a genius who understands
the causes of climate change!

Then Hansen decided the cause of the future warming,
after 1988, would be carbon dioxide, which was not
blamed for more than a tiny percentage
of the warming from 1850 to 1975.

Where is Hansen’s proof, or even an explanation,
of why and how natural climate change stopped,
and carbon dioxide took over as “climate controller”.

Where is the proof that warming from 1988 to 2003
was caused by CO2, and could not be natural warming,
which was the cause of the similar warming period
from 1910 to 1940?

If CO2 was the cause of the warming,
after 1988, then what is the explanation
for the flat temperature trend
from 2003 to 2015,
before the 2015 El Nino?

Also, there should have been
considerable warming
in Antarctica, if CO2 was the cause
… but there was not.

A small portion of Antarctica
had some warming,
but overall, the temperature
and ice mass did not exhibit
symptoms of greenhouse gas

In fact, the small areas
that had warming
just happened to be near
underseas volcanoes.

Certainly, CO2 in the air
could not cause specific areas
near underseas volcanoes
to warm, while the rest of the continent
did not warm ?

For the next 20 years,
I predict the climate
will be more of the same
— slight, harmless night time warming,
mainly in colder, drier areas,
and there’s a good chance I’ll be right …
but making a correct guess
of ‘more of the same’,
like Hansen did,
would not make me
a climate change genius either.

Mr. Strokes, your blog’s focus on
the minutia of monthly average
temperature measurements is
very risky, to draw any conclusions,
since a majority of the numbers
in the average temperature
are wild guesses
by government bureaucrats,
that can never be verified or falsified.

No other field of science would accept
such low quality data, yet you seem to be
in love with it !


Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 5:59 am

Is this a Rorschach test? Looks like a bunch of squiggly lines to me.


dodgy geezer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 6:02 am

Two points:

1 – Hansen covers practically the entire possible temperature range with his predictions. It would be well-nigh impossible for the temperature not to be SOMEWHERE on his graph

2 – We’re nearer C than B. IIRC, B was business as usual, while C was stopping ALL emissions. Hansen’s predictions show that running with no cap on emissions produces temperatures close to stopping all emissions. Does that argue for closing CO2 emissions down?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  dodgy geezer
June 19, 2018 6:12 am

“Hansen covers practically the entire possible temperature range “
Not really. For a start they are all rising strongly. It was not obvious at the time that temperatures would rise at all. But the spread comes from uncertainty about what would be emitted. We know that now, so that takes out the spread.

I agree we are between B and C. CO2 closely followed B; CH4 was below C, as of course were the CFCs.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 6:53 am

Nick-san: The GW from 1979~2007 is mostly attributed to PDO and AMO 30-yr warm cycles, not CO2 forcing…

Let’s see what happens to global temps from 2021 when both the PDO and the AMO are in their respective 30-yr cool cycles and when a possible Grand Solar Minimum event kicks in from 2020, which will likely bring additional cooling…

The last time the PDO wss reaching the end of its 30-yr cool cycle, scientists were predicting the coming of a New Ice Age from manmade fossil fuel particulate pollution…

Always man’s fault whether the earth is cooling or warming…

Why is that, Nick?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  SAMURAI
June 19, 2018 7:00 am

“The GW from 1979~2007 is mostly attributed…”
The claim is that Hansen got it wrong. Now you seem to be saying – OK, right, but a fluke. Whatever.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 7:25 am

“The claim is that Hansen got it wrong.”

Where does SAMURAI claim Hansen got it wrong?

“Now you seem to be saying – OK, right, but a fluke. Whatever.”

The claim that Hansen got it wrong is true, if he got it right for the wrong reasons.

“John died today from cancer.”

No, John died from something else entirely, e.g., heart failure.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  sycomputing
June 19, 2018 3:37 pm

“Where does SAMURAI claim Hansen got it wrong?”
He didn’t. I’m commenting on that assertion in the article.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 4:28 pm

“He didn’t. I’m commenting on that assertion in the article.”

Well, if he didn’t say that Hansen got it wrong, then neither could he be seeming to say, “OK, right, but a fluke.”

Instead, it would appear he would just be saying what he actually said, which was:

“Nick-san: The GW from 1979~2007 is mostly attributed to PDO and AMO 30-yr warm cycles, not CO2 forcing…”

So, is he wrong on this point? If so, why?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 4:38 pm

You do get that you could have plotted GDP, population of the world, computing power of a desktop PC and the sales of mobile phones on those same graphs scaled to the right size and they would move in the same way. All of which still leads us to the problem it tells you nothing about any real relationships between any and all of them and there could be none.

It’s like a stock broker who believes in the charts on the futures market and when the chart does x then the market will do y. They face the same problem it’s built on imagination and enough stupids believing it so that reality follows the belief

dodgy geezer
Reply to  dodgy geezer
June 19, 2018 6:33 am

P.S Actually, the graph shows that Hansen’s Business as Usual projections are way too high, and that the actual Business as Usual produces temperatures closer to Hansen’s predictions for closing down our energy production.

Effectively, what that graph implies is that human CO2 output has little or no influence on the Earth’s temperature. And that’s using the highest of all figures – GISS….

Nick Stokes
Reply to  dodgy geezer
June 19, 2018 6:48 am

The scenarios aren’t predictions. Hansen didn’t describe A as Business as Usual in the paper. What he did say was that “Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible’. But the whole purpose of scenarios is to separate the mathematical prediction process from the unknown, which is what human society will choose to do. You have to guess that, and then calculate. And the best you can do is make guesses that cover the plausible range. You find out later what worked out. Then you can check the calculation.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 7:59 am

“The scenarios aren’t predictions.”

But in the original comment you said:

“Hansen’s prediction was remarkably accurate.”

Can the predictions not be predictions at the same time?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  sycomputing
June 19, 2018 3:50 pm

When you make a prediction with scenarios, it is conditional, often called a projection. Things you don’t know are put into the scenario. But when time has passed, you do know them. Then the conditionals can be removed, and it is a testable prediction.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 5:14 pm

That’s very interesting…thank you.

How do we know then that the unknown conditional we now believe after time to be known, once it’s removed from the original prediction/projection to make our prediction testable, is going to hold true when more time has passed?

Scenario A: Guy runs out onto the busy highway, gets smacked by cars and it kills him.

Scenario B: Guy runs out onto the busy highway, gets smacked by cars and it doesn’t kill him.

A tiny sample of unknowns applicable to both scenarios might be, 1) # of cars during the incident; 2) who’s driving the cars; 2a) have those drivers been drinking? 3) has the test subject been drinking?; 3a) is the subject wearing his glasses?; 4) is their moisture on the asphalt? 4a) how much moisture?


I’m sure you can imagine how the number of unknowns that could affect the physics of just these two conditional scenarios would be tremendous, and extremely difficult, if not impossible to imagine, much less to input into a software model.

Is it your opinion that earth’s climate is less complicated than the above?

Wouldn’t it make more sense to know all the unknowns before we made the prediction? And if the answer to this is, “no, we need the unknowns to help us work out the predictability of our projections,” then doesn’t it make more sense to limit any mitigation actions we might take to deal with the problem until we know whether it’s a problem with which we can actually deal?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  sycomputing
June 19, 2018 5:23 pm

“Wouldn’t it make more sense to know all the unknowns before we made the prediction?”
I’m sure many investors, policymakers etc would agree with you. But the reality is, or was, that Hansen has a program that can tell you how much temperature will rise for a given rise in GHG concentrations. That is useful information, especially if you have some control over GHG concentrations.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 5:31 pm

Hansen’s predictions have been preposterously inaccurate. Temperature, in so far as it can be measured, is following his scenario for no more emissions after AD 2000. Yet CO2 has continued to rise, while temperature hasn’t followed it.

His other two scenarios, including the most extreme one, which has in fact occurred, aren’t even close. The middle one was approached during the brief 2016 El Nino spike, but now it’s diverging from reality again.

Thus the hypothesis upon which he made his assumptions is falsified. So his program most certainly cannot tell us how much T will rise from higher GHG concentrations. He has failed miserably, at enormous cost in lives and treasure.

How could any government have confidence in a raving loon who predicts boiling oceans from man-made CO2?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 5:36 pm

“But the reality is, or was, that Hansen has a program that can tell you how much temperature will rise for a given rise in GHG concentrations.”

Then it must also be your position that there are no more unknowns in the climate system? We know everything about the physics of earth’s climate?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 6:43 pm

Oh dear, this debate again. What did we eventually decide last time?

http://wmbriggs.com/post/13252/ says in small part:

People trying to escape the implication of a bad forecast often claim their forecast wasn’t a forecast but a projection or scenario. The implication is that a bad forecast means a (possibly beloved) theory is no good. Therefore, if the forecast wasn’t a forecast, but a projection or scenario, the theory can still be admired (or funded).

This won’t do. Forecasts are scenarios are projections. And bad forecast-scenario-projections means bad theories.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Ric Werme
June 19, 2018 6:57 pm

” Forecasts are scenarios are projections.”
Just nonsense. Multiple scenarios are stated at the time. They currently run from RCP2.6 to RCP8.5. Everyone knows that they cover a big range and can’t all be right. They are not forecasts.

The deal is simple. We have a model that says, if you do A1, then B1 will happen. If you do A2, then B2 will happen. etc.

Then to check the forecast, you check first what you actually did.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 7:55 pm

“Everyone knows that they cover a big range and can’t all be right. They are not forecasts.”

“Then to check the forecast, you check first what you actually did.”

In other words, the forecast doesn’t become a “forecast” until it fits the theory?

Don’t you think that’s a bit backwards at best and useless at worst when you haven’t much of a clue about the unknown “unknowns” that you can’t yet know because you haven’t even been able to put all the possible known “unknowns” into all the possible known scenarios (much less the unknown ones) and the number of possible scenarios are, for all you know, or don’t, somewhere near infinite?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  sycomputing
June 19, 2018 8:07 pm

“In other words, the forecast doesn’t become a “forecast” until it fits the theory?”
I don’t know how people can be so stupid about this. You go to a financial adviser and say, I have $100,000. What should I do with it, and what will I gain? And the FA says
Scenario A – put in this bank. Safe, and I predict $2000 pa.
Scenario B – put in these bonds. Should get $#3000 pa
Scenario C – put in these shares. Should get $5000 pa. Riskier

So five years later, how did his forecast do? Well, it depends on what you did. If you put it in bonds and got $3000, he’s right. If you bought the shares and got $3000, he’s wrong.

And yes, the scenarios are infinite. You might have switched from shares to bonds halfway. Etc. That doesn’t mean the FA advice was worthless.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 8:44 pm

“I don’t know how people can be so stupid about this.”

Interesting. Normally you’re not a callous jerk…it would appear I’m vindicated. Since it would also appear you’ve been summarily dispatched, I’ll thank you for some interesting things I did learn from you today.

I don’t go to my financial advisor for advice on climate change. I hope he doesn’t go to you for advice on my portfolio.

But yet I’m the “stupid” one?

Isn’t it that rather you’re just getting a bit miffed at your arguments’ getting a smack down of reasonable objections such that you’ve resorted to ad hominem foolishness rather than just do what you normally do, which is ignore the question?

You may as well just do the latter rather than behave like a spoiled stepchild by answering it. Nevertheless, I can’t say I don’t enjoy your loathing just a little bit, if I do boast a tad about myself.

“And yes, the scenarios are infinite. You might have switched from shares to bonds halfway. Etc. That doesn’t mean the FA advice was worthless.”

Thank you. It does if he’s wrong. And it does if you are. Quite the big difference between the Red Herring/False Equivalence investment scenario you’ve described and proposals to mitigate AGW is not only the number of people subject to harm from drastically reorganizing the world’s energy sources and production methods, but that it might not even be necessary in the first place.

Nick Werner
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 9:08 pm

Wow Nick S… I chose to comment here because you reminded me of the saying that “a speculation is an investment gone wrong”.
Let’s cut to the chase about the chart from 1988:
Predicted temperature series A was for CO2 (‘trace gas’) Emission Scenario A,
Predicted temperature series B was for CO2 Emission Scenario B,
Predicted temperature series C was for CO2 Emission Scenario C.
Thirty years of results are in:
The CO2 emissions most closely tracked Scenario A.
The temperatures were between series B and C.
I think that a wise person would concede that and then stop talking. Because the more you talk, the more apparent it should be to readers that in the present context, a ‘scenario’ or a ‘projection’ is nothing other than a prediction gone wrong.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Nick Werner
June 19, 2018 9:34 pm

“The CO2 emissions most closely tracked Scenario A.”
Just not true. And you give no substantiation.

From here, in 2015 CO2 according to scenario A would have been 403 ppm. Scenario B said 398.6 ppm. Actual was 399 ppm.

Here is a graph from a 2008 post at Climate Audit:

comment image

Reply to  Nick Werner
June 20, 2018 11:55 am

Let’s cut to the chase about the chart from 1988:
Predicted temperature series A was for CO2 (‘trace gas’) Emission Scenario A,
Predicted temperature series B was for CO2 Emission Scenario B,
Predicted temperature series C was for CO2 Emission Scenario C.

Wrong, your saying it repeatedly doesn’t make it true, about ten years ago I corrected Steve McIntyre’s similar remarks and he was grudgingly forced to concede that I was right..
The projections were for Trace gases, not just CO2.
CO2 levels projections were close to Scenario B
Scenario A 410ppm, Scenario B 404ppm, Scenario C 368ppm
2017-2018 Max 411ppm Min 403ppm
So slightly above B and below A (as Hansen expected)

The other trace gases have been close to scenario C and below.
In his figure 2 Hansen plotted CO2 forcing (since 1960) as well as the other forcings. His expectation under scenario A&B for CO2 alone by ~2020 was ~0.5ºC, for CO2 and other trace gases it was just over 1.0ºC. Given what has actually happened the expectation would be ~0.5ºC from CO2 plus ~0.1ºC from the other trace gases.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2018 8:16 am

The model Itself used by Hansen to obtain the projections under the scenarios is the prediction. By this I mean that feeding into the model the measured data yields the prediction to compare with.

If climate change was a reputable science the model would be part of the supplied additional information to the journal and the prediction could be tested. I somehow suspect this is not the case. The only way to test the prediction is to use the same model, not an updated version of the model. Is this model available? If so someone should test the prediction. If not the paper is void of any significance since it is un-replicable and un-falsifiable.

Reply to  dodgy geezer
June 19, 2018 6:42 am

“Hansen covers practically the entire possible temperature range”

Far from it. Even with the wide range of possible emission scenarios, Hanson predicted a ~2018 range of +0.6°C to 1.5°C at a time when some people still thought we would enter an ice age. He did not predict a decrease. With land based observations showing about a 1°C increase over that time, seems incredibly prescient now.

Land station observations: 1988-2018

Reply to  Mat
June 19, 2018 5:44 pm

The fears of a new ice age were in the 1970s, not in 1988. By then it was obvious that Earth was in a warming cycle, as during the early 20th century, after an intervening pronounced cooling cycle from the 1940s to ’70s.

His range was too broad to be meaningful. His lower guess, which turned out to be closest to reality, was based upon no more growth in CO2 after AD 2000. “Observed” temperature has spiked below and above this lowest forecast. Since CO2 has continued its rise, he could not have possibly been more wrong.

His WAG at ECS of 4.0 K was also ridiculously high.

Reply to  David Middleton
June 19, 2018 6:08 pm

And yet his fr@udulent WAG was the basis for Charney’s 1979 “canonical” central value of 3.0 K, unchanged by IPCC despite almost 40 years of actual observations which show ECS to be lower than 2.0 K.

Charney’s other guess was less wild, Manabe’s estimate of 2.0 K per doubling of CO2. Charney then picked an arbitrary margin of error of 0.5 K to reach his ECS range of 1.5 to 4.5 K.

This has remained inviolate, despite advances, because the higher guesses are needed to produce scary temperature predictions or projections.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  David Middleton
June 19, 2018 6:21 pm

“The 4K USWAG was based on the direct correlation of low frequency Antarctic ice core CO2 chronologies to high frequency Antarctic ice core d18O temperature chronologies.”

Complete nonsense. There is nothing in the paper about ice core chronologies. 4K is not a WAG. It is an output from the model. The process is described in this 1984 paper to which his later paper refers.

“was the basis for Charney’s 1979 “canonical” central value of 3.0 K”
Even more nonsense. Hansen’s value was not available in 1979.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 8:20 pm

Sorry, Nick, but the nonsense is all yours. Clearly, you’ve never read the Charney Report:

Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment


Personal communication with Hansen, Chapter 4, “Models and Their Validity”, page 16. He’s also mentioned in the intro and his H2 model is cited in the References section.

It would have been easy for you to check. Why didn’t you before spreading false nonsense?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Felix
June 19, 2018 8:34 pm

Personal communication (what did he say, about what?) is not a publication. Hansen had not published any ECS estimate in 1979.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 9:08 pm

In case I’ve been unclear, the communication was about as yet unpublished model output. Hansen’s WAG “found” absurdly high ECS of 4.0 K, as I said. Manabe’s model produced a more realistic, but still too high 2.0, as I also told you.

Then Charney simply averaged these two guesses and added an arbitrary MoE of 0.5 K. But I repeat myself. Again. For your benefit.

Reply to  Felix
June 19, 2018 8:36 pm


Wrong you are.

Please read the report, as would be proper procedure before presuming to comment upon it.

Hansen had a proposal in 1978, called H1 in the report, cited as GISS in the Reference chapter. The reason that Charney relied on personal communication is that Hansen had run the H2 model but not yet published it.

The same was true for Manabe’s M2 and M3, which also hadn’t been published yet. The only published model in 1979 was Manabe’s M1.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Felix
June 19, 2018 9:05 pm

” The only published model in 1979 was Manabe’s M1.”
Indeed. What Charney does say of what he learnt of the current (early stage) status of these models is
“The horizontal resolution of the H series is rather coarse and perhaps only marginal for meaningful climate prediction.”
It seems Hansen agreed, for it was another five years before he published the estimate that you now say influenced Charney in 1979. As for H2, the one acquired by your “personal communication”, Charney says
“Thus we obtain 2°C as the lower bound for the M series, and 3.5°C as the upper bound from H1, the more realistic of the H series”.

So none of this says that Charney relied on the 1984 GCM result. By current standards, I would say that Charney should not have semi-published such an early-stage result from Hansen. People should wait until the author thinks it is ready.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 9:15 pm

And yet he was called upon to provide a best estimate, and complied.

What would have been different had he waited?

IPCC has always endorsed his ECS range of 1.5 to 4.5 K, with a central “canonical” value of 3.0. The GCMs of course run hot, so none that I know of has produced the most realistic ECS, which is the very bottom of the range, ie close to 1.5 K per doubling of ECS.

Correct me if wrong, but the lowest result I’ve seen is 2.1 K.

The physical world says the range is 0.8 to 1.6 K, with a central figure of 1.2 K, ie the no feedback value. Net cooling is a real possibility.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 6:07 am

Spot on Nick. Thank you. I constantly see model output at the surface compared with troposphere or different spatial areas. When you compare apples with apples, Hansen did incredibly well considering the little data and computing he was working with.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Mat
June 19, 2018 7:04 am

If Hansen did so incredibly well with what he was working with, why are we wasting all that money with all the new methods since then? We should just use his methods and be happy with that rather than trying to refine the results down to the .001C difference.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  David Middleton
June 19, 2018 6:28 am

“I just regenerated my plot of his 5-yr running mean and GISTEMP.”
Isn’t that exactly the same as in the post? What you need is GISS Ts (met stations only). They do track closely before 1990. But once warming sets in, the near-surface air warms faster than SST. And that is what Hansen’s model used, and what GISS Ts measures.

“5-yrs isn’t even climate yet, 30-yrs is climate.”
If you insist on 30 years, you only have one point and can’t test the prediction.

Ed Reid
Reply to  David Middleton
June 19, 2018 6:30 am

…and, 30 years is still shorter than the periods of several natural phenomena with significant climate impacts.

Philip Clarke
Reply to  David Middleton
June 19, 2018 7:22 am

I think, if you showed that plot blind to somebody, just telling them that the black lines were projections for the red, the reaction would be … hey, not bad!

Reply to  David Middleton
June 19, 2018 5:50 pm

Note that all three scenarios predict a temporary drop in T just when the El Nino caused a spike. Without the crash in Scenario B, the El Nino spike wouldn’t have reached it.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Felix
June 19, 2018 6:24 pm

In fact, scenarios B and C included major volcanic eruptions, the first of which was postulated in 1995. This actually did cover the effect of Pinatubo (still in the future) pretty well. Scenario A, which dates back to 1983, did not include allowance for volcanoes.

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 6:23 am

Honestly Nick, you really must be a bit gormless. The so called ‘observations’ have been kiddy fiddled’ to fit the Hansen ‘model’. Its like any fear based religion or voodoo. The shaman’s predictions must be shown to be accurate because otherwise the shaman is seen to be a fraud. So the shaman and his buddies/hangers on/fellow shamans do everything in their power to make sure everyone is convinced the prediction is true. If that involves throwing a bit of magic powder on the fire at a key moment, giving everyone a refreshing coolade or just bombarding them with confected propaganda they whatever it takes….

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Komrade Kuma
June 19, 2018 6:41 am

OK, I have added a green curve. That is TempLS mesh. It is the index I calculate using unadjusted GHCN data, as originally reported. It makes very little difference.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  David Middleton
June 19, 2018 7:05 am

Mine are all from a post at end 2016. Your red is 12-month smooth, my curves are all calendar years (should be similar). The green-brown difference shows the effect of GISS land adjustments; it isn’t much, but green is slightly cooler.

Ed Reid
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 6:27 am

Of course, selecting 2016, at the peak of a super El Nino, was not “cherry picking”.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Ed Reid
June 19, 2018 6:43 am

It is not updated every year – this is the most recent plot I have, created in 2016. If you want to see the 2017 picture, just add the 2015 figure; it will be close.

Reply to  David Middleton
June 19, 2018 12:56 pm

In the case of climate, the data tend to end if more recent data do not support the story-telling.

It is not a consp., just that only good data will trigger active forwarding in the pipeline. Wikipedia does not have 2017 data for CO2 emissions country by country. Nor full 2016 data. Why do you think when we have this pressing matter of CO2 emissions, global warming and Paris agreement to follow up? Well?

The reason is governments not processing stats that look bad; and Wikipediacs are not willing to publish a lost battle.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2018 3:16 am

I direct your attention to “ Did you know the greatest two-year cooling event just took place?” , authored by Jeffrey Snider, Realclearmarkets at realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/04/24/did_you_know_the_greatest_two-year_global_cooling_event_just_took_place-103243.html
“Would it surprise you to learn the greatest two year cooling event of the last century just occurred? From February 2016 to February 2018( the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped .56 degrees Celsius.You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two year drop,.47C.-also during the global warning era.All the data in this essay come from GISSTEMP Team 2018 etc.”
At NASA GISS it continues to claim the temperature (anomaly) increase over the last hundred or so years is about 1.1degrees C.
And yes it’s just weather, and two years cooling is not fatal to CAGW, but it would be nice to update the data and the narrative, not to mention explaining the effect of ENSO in 2015-2016.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Herbert
June 20, 2018 3:33 am

“but it would be nice to update the data and the narrative”
I’m well aware of recent movements. I maintain an updated plotting facility here, on which you can interactively plot datasets. And yes, there was a steep drop in about May 2016. It followed an even bigger rise over the preceding few months. And the temperature since has stayed mostly at above the annual average level of 2014, which was a record at the time. Here is the graph of GISS Land/Ocean, which shows the spike of which you are describing one side:

comment image

However, updating special items like the Hansen forecast plot can’t be done with the same frequency. Nor is it appropriate. Hansen was forecasting the long term future; nothing special about 2016 or 2018. That’s what we look for now, but you have to look at the whole sequence to see how well the forecast worked.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2018 3:30 pm

Thanks for your response.
The rise and fall of temperature and the “spike” you reference is ENSO caused, is it not?
The same applies to the 1998 temperature rise.
Or do you maintain that it is caused by human emissions?
ENSO is a periodic natural phenomenon, according to my research.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Herbert
June 21, 2018 2:28 am

“The rise and fall of temperature and the “spike” you reference is ENSO caused, is it not?”
Yes. So why try to beat up
“the greatest two year cooling event of the last century”?
The fact is that most of the variations on a scale of a year or two are ENSO caused. This includes the La Niñas of 2008/9 and 2011/2 that were the basis of the “pause”. The point is the warming to which these variations are added. After the latest Niño, we are still running warmer than 2014, which was the warmest year to date.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2018 3:44 pm

GISS is a pack of lies, but even in that cooked to a crisp “record”, the 2016 super El Nino peak was barely higher than the 1998 super El Nino, hence essentially no warming in this century.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Felix
June 21, 2018 2:32 am

“GISS is a pack of lies”
People say this ad nauseam, but never a shred of justification. The raw data is available – do your own calculation. I do, and I showed it above. I get answers very similar to GISS.

richard verney
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 1, 2018 4:05 am

The problem is the entire methodology of the data set, which is fundamental, and cannot be adequately addressed by making adjustments.

It is really necessary to make like with like comparisons if we are to know whether there has been any material change.

This requires using the exact same stations at all times. It requires using the exact same measuring equipment (ie., LIG thermometers, the same design of enclosure, painted with the same type of paint etc), it requires taking measurements at the same TOB as used at each station, it requires that there has been no material environmental change to the station and its immediate environs. It requires comparing the station data with itself, not with other stations.

We need to find the best stations, retrofit these, obtain modern day unadjusted RAW data which can be directly compared, without any adjustments to the stations own historic RAW data. Simply compare each station with itself and see how many stations show warming and by how much.

That would tell us something of real substance. My guess (and it is only a hunch) is that the temperature today, if properly measured, is not significantly higher than the temperatures of the late 1930s/early 1940s.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 7:24 am

Warmunists must make sure to use the temperature chart
that ends with the temporary heat peak of the 2015 / 2016
El Nino, rather than charts that end with current
temperature data
Oh, wait, that’s exactly what you did !
(see the blue, red and green lines
on your carefully selected,
two years out of date, chart).
As a defender of surface data,
which consist of a majority
of wild guesses (infilling),
that can never be verified, or falsified,
and a minority of adjusted data,
often “adjusted” more than once,
( no raw as-measured data ),
you are completely ignoring
satellite and weather balloon
temperature data,
which confirm each other,
and show less warming
than surface data.

Also, you ought to know (maybe)
that the 2015 / 2016 El Nino
temperature peak was temporary,
and had nothing to do with CO2,
so using that peak as the end point
on “your” temperature chart,
over two years out of date,
is nothing more than
your deliberate propaganda.

I imagine you warmunists
will still be using those
“glorious charts”
from the “good old days”
that end with the 2015 / 2016
El Nino temperature peak
years from now too !

My climate change blog,
with over 18,000 page views so far:

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 7:34 am

Nick, you seem have missed a couple of articles, e.g., the one where his supervisor said that Hansen was wrong, a supervisor with more experience and training in weather prediction and modeling than Hansen. And what proof did Hansen ever present that even if the climate was warming faster because of CO2 that the warming would have catastrophic consequences. You also seem to forget what the debate is actually all about. The climate has been warming generally since the last glaciation and warming faster since the Little Ice Age (a climatic era Hansen tried to dispel). The question is whether it is warming faster due to anthropogenic activities, such as greenhouse gas emissions and whether that additional warming might be catastrophic. Yet a bigger question is Hansen’s behavior. Which is basically anyone that disagrees with him should be punished. I quit listen to most of what Hansen had to say after the third or fourth media interview at conferences while still as NASA where he was screaming that Bush was trying to gag him. Neither the man or his science has any veracity what so ever. And while you believe in CAGW you might think long and hard about the people you decided to defend.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 7:58 am


Before you embarrass yourself any further with your hero worship of Hansen, you should be aware of this.

“He [Hansen] thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.”

“Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done.”

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that Global Warming is man made.”

John S. Theon (James Hansen’s former boss, now retired).

January 13, 2009

Nick Stokes
Reply to  HotScot
June 19, 2018 3:51 pm

John S Theon was not Hansen’s former boss.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 4:09 pm

From NASA HQ in DC, Theon supervised GISS (NYC) while Hansen was its director. “The money came through (Theon).” Theon visited GISS at least once a year in 1983-94. Hansen claimed never to have met him, so either his memory is faulty or he was lying.


Nick Stokes
Reply to  Felix
June 19, 2018 5:32 pm

Theon is a guy who speaks at Heartland conferences etc and is big-noting himself. This is one of these endless stories that circulate without anyone bothering to check on the facts. What position did Theon actually hold?

Hansen didn’t claim to have never met him; he said that he never had any interactions with him. Here is what Hansen actually said:

“Hansen wrote: John Theon never had any supervisory authority over me. I remember that he was in the bureaucracy at NASA Headquarters, but I cannot recall having any interactions with him. His claim of association is misleading, to say the least. What he can legitimately say is that he had a reasonably high position in the Headquarters bureaucracy. A job in that bureaucracy is not considered to be a plum, so we should probably be grateful that somebody is willing to do it, and I don’t particularly want to kick the fellow around. You should investigate his scientific contributions to evaluate the degree to which his opinions might be listened to. Of course you are free to quote me.”

Hansen is right about Theon’s scientific contributions. They are sparse. No-one has ever heard of him beyond this claim.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 5:37 pm

I should have said “met with”. As I did say, Hansen has amnesia or is lying. He “interacted” with Theon at least once a year for over a decade. His funding came through Theon’s program.

Talk about “misleading”!

A supervisor can rightly be said to be a boss, so Hot Scot was right.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Felix
June 19, 2018 6:09 pm

Again, totally fact free and gullible. You don’t know what Theon’s job was. You don’t know of any supervision that he might have performed.

The position is that Theon got up at a Heartland conference and claimed to have been his supervisor. Hansen said, ” John Theon never had any supervisory authority over me”. OK, time for Theon and his fans to put up some actual evidence. If Hansen is lying, as you claim, it’s all on record. Easily proved. But since then, nothing. Theon did not put up. He shut up.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 5:12 pm

Nick Stokes

How did I know you were going to claim that.

According to John S Theon, in all but annual reviews, he was.

Or are you an expert in this subject as well Nick?

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 8:00 am

In honour of Dr Gray, I remind everyone that Hansen did not make any “predictions”. Making a prediction requires using a validated model. His model has never been and will not be validated. At best they were “projections”, or more accurately, “guesses”.

Dr Hansen made inaccurate projections based on the natural warming that took place before 1950. His claim (or anyone’s) to have a model capable of making predictions has not been borne out by anyone I have heard from.

Nick, you did not point out that the emissions of CO2 rose faster than Hansen’s Scenario A and that the two temperature plots just above and farther up do not agree. Hansen’s model, such it was a model in the conventional sense, was completely inadequate both in the inputs and the understanding of the physics. If it happened to make even one accurate projection, it is simply blind luck. The computing power, knowledge and databases needed did not exist at the time, and with respect to temperature sets, clouds and cosmic ray effects, they still don’t.

Hansen has it that the global temperature will be 1.5 C above the 1960 level next year, 2019. There isn’t a 1% chance of that happening. There is at least a 32% chance it will be no higher than in 1960 within two years, December 2020.

Where did I get that number, 32%? Normal distribution, sigma 1,: I pulled it out of my posterior just as Hansen did his Scenarios A, B and C in 1988. The difference is my projection is testable and based on observations.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
June 19, 2018 3:58 pm

“Nick, you did not point out that the emissions of CO2 rose faster than Hansen’s Scenario A”
I did point out that CO2 concentrations followed scenario B. You give no numbers to support that claim, but I suspect bad arithmetic is involved.

In fact, Hansen did not have reliable information on emissions (I Gton/year or whatever) and did not use them. All his quantitative work was done with concentrations, which he took as the measure of emissions (just as we still do with methane).

Hansen said that subject to scenario A, temperatures in 2019 would be up by 1.5°C. But scenario A didn’t happen. Hansen didn’t say it would; that is why he also gave scenarios B and C. In fact gas concentrations followed a path between B and C, and that is where temperatures will end up.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 9:00 am

The temp record for now stands at 0.18 C…. Where is that on the graph? And since we do have land and ocean temps, where is the heat from the last ESNO?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  rishrac
June 19, 2018 3:59 pm

The temperature record for the surface, with anomaly base 1951-80, is not 0.18°C. Gistemp is 0.82.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2018 8:21 am

bananas or peaches…. 0.82 C is 0.4 C below the minimum of 1.2 C that was widely circulated in 2012. And was mathematically used as a proof of global warming by co2 ‘ alone ‘. I have no idea what the baseline temperature should be, nor does anyone else. This entire charade of averaging world temperatures is invalid. There is no way of knowing whether that is valid for the things are really important like whether a July frost kills most of the crops. The average could be higher, but you are still going to starve to death. In a world with increasing temperatures, I would fully expect to see less snow, or in isolated places. Snow was not isolated no less.
I have yet to see one prediction from AGW that was correct. Outside of fixing the data or claiming things that aren’t, nothing they’ve warned about is near correct. There is no way in the world of statistics that you could get so many things wrong. One of the ways that AGW addresses things is silence.
In all, I have never said that there wasn’t warming. The cause of the warming is most certainly not from co2. That I am certain about. The temps are up and so is co2 over the past 60 years. On finer time scales, it’s not the total atmospheric co2 compared to yearly anomalies, but the the yearly co2 anomalies that follow the yearly temperature anomalies. Further, co2 also follows solar cycles and cosmic rays. Which the later is beginning to look like a dominant player in climate on many different levels. The change in albedo causes a much bigger change in the surface temperature than anything else, if you go by the math from the IPCC. Even a 10 w/m^2 drop in TSI at TOA is nothing compared to an increase in albedo changing by 1 or 2%.
You have your reasons for believing in AGW. I have every reason to think you are wrong.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2018 9:55 am

So the Met station books have been cooked extra crispy.

June 19, 2018 5:48 am

Curious. Pressable says there are six replies. All I see are mine and one from “mehere”. My page with the Theon post shows that Latitude and rbabcock also made comments. Sigh.

Reply to  Ric Werme
June 19, 2018 6:22 am

Refresh to see them. For some reason the counter updates when you post, but the actual new posts aren’t pulled in.

Bruce Cobb
June 19, 2018 5:49 am

30 years of fighting a bogeyman. What a waste.

June 19, 2018 5:55 am

Let’s use the satalite measurements in that graph.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Mark
June 19, 2018 6:13 am

He was predicting surface temperatures.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 6:21 am

The “surface temperatures” are so stepped on as to be FUBAR.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 19, 2018 7:07 am

They are much better than satellite. But you could compare with the Dow Jones if you are looking for accuracy. We know that pretty well. But it isn’t what Hansen was predicting.

Gunga Din
Reply to  David Middleton
June 19, 2018 4:23 pm

David, may I suggest you use the numbers TheWayBackMachine said the temperatures were then rather than what they now say the temperatures were “then”? 😎

PS Nick seems to think the satellite temperatures are too “now” (and actually Global) to show a how wrong Hansen was. After all, they are the closest we have to an actual Global measurement.
(Adjustments have been made, sure, but to make them more accurate. Not to make a models prediction more accurate.)

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 6:22 am

NASA-GISS adjusted temperatures, no less!

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 7:56 am

Yes! With the UHI goodness baked in.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 8:03 am

He was projecting surface temperatures.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
June 19, 2018 5:35 pm

But the models say the surface should be cooler than where the satellites are measuring. so double fail.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 19, 2018 4:50 pm

Why was he predicting surface temperatures when the surface isn’t measured?

Reply to  Patrick MJD
June 19, 2018 5:41 pm

We have been measuring temperatures at the surface for hundreds of years at meterology stations. It’s the normal weather air temperature you see on tv.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Mat
June 19, 2018 7:54 pm

No we haven’t. More like 1-2m ABOVE the surface.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
June 19, 2018 7:59 pm

Except in the case of the oceans, ie 71% of the surface, in which the “measurements” are at various depths below the surface.

June 19, 2018 6:08 am

“Principal uncertainties in the predictions involve the equilibrium sensitivity of the model to climate forcing, the assumptions regarding heat uptake and transport by the ocean, and the omission of other less-certain climate forcings.”


June 19, 2018 6:19 am

We’re also +/- 10 years away from Hansen’s off-the-cuff prediction that the West Side Highway will be under water.


Reply to  Ric Werme
June 19, 2018 7:02 am

Yeah. I was wondering if the Major Deagan had been swamped as yet.

Reply to  Ric Werme
June 20, 2018 12:30 pm

Well that projection can’t be tested since the Highway Hansen was talking about no longer exists.

Bob Turner
June 19, 2018 6:20 am

I looked at GISTEMP LOTI: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.txt
If I look at their data, the increase in the 5-year average going from 1960 to 2015 is +0.97C. Which is more or less exactly in line with Hansen scenario B in the graph above.
But the graph (red line) nshows a 20% lower temperature increment – about 0.8C.
Could somebody help by explaining the difference?

Philip Clarke
Reply to  Bob Turner
June 19, 2018 6:58 am

Dishonest averaging. Comparing Hansen’s annual data with a 5 year averaged observations. The annual number for 2017 was 0.89C -, but that would make Hansen look good and we can’t have that can we?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Bob Turner
June 19, 2018 4:50 pm

The data you link to is for the original met stations index, now called GISS Ts. That is what Hansen was using at the time and showed on the original graph for comparison, and so is the most appropriate measure of his prediction. What is plotted in the head post is GISS land/ocean (Ts+SST), for which the corresponding fiile is here.

Bob Turner
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2018 12:15 pm

Many thanks!

June 19, 2018 6:33 am

We’ve enjoyed about 0.85C of beneficial warming recovery since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850, of which, CO2 forcing has perhaps contributed 0.2~0.3C of the total, with the remainder from natural factors: LIA recovery, natural variation, PDO/AMO 30-yr warm cycles, El Niño and Super El Niño events, “The Blob”, the strongest 63-yr string of solar cycles in 11,400 years between 1933~1996, etc.,

Because CO2 forcing is logarithmic, we’ll enjoy another 0.3C of CO2 induced warming by 2100, less possible global cooling from the likely 50~75 year Grand Solar Minimum event starting from 2021….

Oh, the humanity…

The CAGW hypothesis has already surpassed the necessary criteria for official disconfirmation given the gigantic disparity and duration between CMIP5 global warming model projections vs. UAH empircal reality..

Happy 30th Birthday CAGW! You’re the biggest and most expensive government ho@x in human history.

Congratulations! How proud you must be…

June 19, 2018 6:39 am

these misanthropes have taken a HODL short position on humanity.
they have a vested interest in a certain outcome.

Gary Pearse
June 19, 2018 6:42 am

Well if we could accept the tortured GISS temp trace it doesnt look a totally terrible first effort forecast for this type of study. Unlike the diametrically wrong prognosis of Ehrlich’s end of world fantasy the slope is in the right direction.

However, a simple extrapolation of the trend from recovery from the LIA and return to Medieval Warm Period temperatures would have been a non emotional forecast of the same thing.

What the GISS did to wipe out the real hottest period so far- the late 1930s- early 40s took away a pivotal climate teaching moment. This, of course, happened without CO2’s help and that would never do! They said 1930s was only a US hot time and it only accounts for 3% of the globe (actually its 10% of the land surface) and when you add Canada, Greenland, Europe, Siberia, South Africa, and several South American countries with the same pattern i-it’s the World.

June 19, 2018 6:45 am

Has anyone compared this to what is expected during an interglacial period? During which the earth will continue warming until it doesn’t? Then back into an ice age.

June 19, 2018 6:49 am

The greenhouse effect of gas carbonic: reality or fiction ?

June 19, 2018

The engineers who are experts in the infrared radiation industry, in particular that of home heating, are formal: the theory of the greenhouse effect of atmospheric gas carbonic is false. Only fanciful models of climatologists consider this theory to explain the warming of the climate of human origin. Let’s go back to the origins of physics, namely Newton’s law of cooling, which stipulates that “the rate of heat loss of a body is proportional to the difference of temperatures between that body and that of the body. its environment”. This is the law of physics that defines the flow of heat between two physical bodies in contact and in the case that concerns us between the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth and the oceans. It is written as follows:

– see on site-

k is a constant to be determined and which requires calculations none of which is related to the infra-red radiation emitted by the body.

The greenhouse effect theory attempts to define the heat transfer between the Earth and the atmosphere using the Stefan-Boltzmann law for infra-red radiation which requires a factor that is absent in this case: the The lowest of the atmosphere should be separated from the surface of the Earth by vacuum, but it is directly in contact with the earth’s surface and that of the oceans. Only Newton’s law of cooling can therefore be applied in the case of the Earth-atmosphere system. Is it not axiomatic not to be able to get the right answer when we use the wrong law to describe a phenomenon ? Since Newton is mentioned here, would you claim to use the law of the fall of a sphere from a height of 5 meters to determine its volume ?

The question that interests us is therefore whether or not it is possible to heat the atmosphere with infra-red radiation. And if so, how is such a transfer of heat between the Earth’s surface and the Newton’s Newton’s cooling atmosphere affected ?

Rather than speculating let’s look at what hundreds of scientific experiments and millions of hours of home heating experience have shown. First, consider the work of John Tyndall (1820-1893), a nineteenth-century physicist who conducted a large number of experiments in his laboratory to test the ability of various gases to block the transmission of infra-red rays. he called at the time the “heat rays”. He tested for example gas carbonic up to a concentration of 80000 ppm, 200 times more than the current content of this gas in the atmosphere and concluded:

“Gas carbonic is one of the weakest (feeblest in Tyndall’s text) absorbing radiant heat emitted by a solid source. For example, it is extremely transparent to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate to which we refer “(see the link at the end of the post).

Tyndall also noted that at atmospheric concentrations gas carbonic had no effect on the temperature of the air whatever the amount of “heat radiation” passing through it. He wrote: “Through the air (…) the waves of the ether pass without absorption, and the temperature of these gases is not significantly modified by the most powerful radiations calorific. ”

Despite these observations, Svante August Arrhenius (1859-1927) speculated 30 years after Tyndall’s work that carbon dioxide increases soil temperature not according to Newton’s law but according to Stefan-Boltzmann’s. To test the Arrhenius hypothesis, the Swedish physicist Knut Ångström (1857-1910) published in 1900 experiments he carried out in his laboratory in an article entitled “The importance of water vapor and gas carbonic in the absorption of the atmosphere “. (Annalen der Physik Bd3, 1900, p720-732). Angström’s experiment consisted of filling a glass tube with a gas containing gas carbonic simulating a column of air in contact with the ground and reaching the top of the atmosphere. He varied the gas carbonic content in half and then doubled it and he was unable to observe any change in the temperature of the gas contained in this column of glass regardless of the intensity of the infra-red source.

Angström’s observations have been confirmed by millions of hours of use of domestic infrared heaters by engineers and technicians of this discipline. Here is what they say: “Infrared energy travels at the speed of light without heating the air it passes through because infra-red radiation is absorbed by gas carbonic, steam water and other gases in the atmosphere

Angström’s observations have been confirmed by millions of hours of use of domestic infrared heaters by engineers and technicians of this discipline. Here is what they say: “Infrared energy travels at the speed of light without heating the air it passes through because infra-red radiation is absorbed by gas carbonic, steam water and other gases in the atmosphere only negligibly. Infrared heaters reach objects in a room but do not affect the air in a room. It is the diffuse radiation that results that makes a person feels comfortable in a room heated by such a heating system.

So what we have is on the one hand a sum of scientific experiments and on the other hand the real-world observations in the field of the application of infra-red rays which demonstrate that the IR radiations do not heat the air , and why ? Simply because it has been shown since the end of the nineteenth century that a molecule of these gases that make up the atmosphere absorb infrared rays, but immediately re-emit them. John Tyndall also wrote: “According to this experience it has been proved that a molecular arrangement rendering a gas a powerful absorber of heat radiation also makes it a powerful emitter of these radiations. Thus, while the atoms of the elemental gases of the atmosphere cause them to be incapable of radiating radiant heat, they have been shown to be disrupters of the surrounding ether. In other words – say “more modern” – increasing the gas carbonic content of the atmosphere also increases the emissivity of the atmosphere. Stefan-Boltzmann’s law defines the relationship between the atmosphere and space and a parameter of this law describes the emissivity of the atmosphere. It has long been shown that a high emissivity constant allows the material to emit the same amount of infra-red at a lower temperature. The hypothesis of the greenhouse effect suggests instead that increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere by adding “greenhouse gases” will have the opposite effect and will then require that the atmosphere be warmer in order to emit the same amount of infra-red radiation to the space.

How can we not understand that some people are skeptical about a theory that on the one hand uses the bad law of physics to define the relationship between the atmosphere and the extra-planetary space and who else part applies the law of Stefan-Boltzmann contrary to its original definition !

As close as possible to an article written by Carl Brehmer, a heat engineer in the home heating industry, in 2012 and published on John Sullivan’s website. It is sometimes beneficial to re-examine the scientific results acquired nearly 150 years ago.

Recent scientific publications confirm the work of Tyndall who did not have a thermometer sensitive to one hundredth of a degree. For example, a recent article by Dr. BM Smirnov (link) demonstrates that what is suggested in Brehmer’s article, namely the re-emission of infrared radiation by the molecules of the gases constituting the atmosphere leads to an enlargement of the bands of absorption of the latter and therefore a doubling of the gas carbonic content in the atmosphere would cause an increase of at most 0.4 ° C on the ground. Since the total quantity of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced directly by human activity is only 5% of the total amount of this carbon dioxide, the contribution of human origin in the recent evolution of the temperature of the planet Earth is not only 0.02 ° C! There is no need for further alarm because there is still room for everyone to be grilled as toast as claimed a few years ago the IMF Director Christine Lagarde.

Tyndall J., Fragments of Science: A series of Detached Essays, Addresses Years Reviews, (1879) available at http://www.gutenberg.org

B. Smirnov, Journal of Physics D, doi: 10.1088 / 1361-6463 / aabac6



June 19, 2018 7:01 am

A top Kurdestan scientist say Congress and the world that I can stop global warming with my new scientific formula. You can research about this new formula and test me easily.
This new hydro power scientific formula (E>P+1at) is the near future of renewable energy in the world and it can solve global warming difficulties!
(Ee>Ep+E1at) = (E>P+1at)
What is the most difficult scientific question of global hydro power that no one scientists could the answer to it?
Now the hard global question!
How can we produce clean energy in a best way by the potential of water Static head in dams & seas that this water pressure can push to the center of planet?
This is by getting benefit of joint scientific formula (E>P+1at) with immersion turbines method inside the water of dams & seas (Immersion turbines of series and parallel in zero point of opposite forces).
Ee= High pressure clean energy that is produced by the water power plants in the depth of water via released fixed potential energy of water natural pressure (More than ten meters of water) with new method (Immersion turbines of series and parallel in zero point of opposite forces).
Ep= Released fixed potential energy of water natural pressure in water depth (More than ten meters of water).
E1at= Amount of energy that is consumed at a small pump of one atmosphere power is the ability (In the same place of the water power plant in water depth).
Many scientists believe that the discovery of the formula is unparalleled. Although many still in shock! How this formula has not be discovered by scientists in the world. Answer to a hard question that scientists are searching for hundreds of years and they can control of climate change and stop global warming.
My new formula and new method can change the world and start a new industrial revolution soon.
This invention is patented in Department of Justice in Kurdistan of Iraq No. 952/6 on 12/6/2013.
The TV report:

Reply to  Kambiz Fatehi
June 19, 2018 8:20 am
Reply to  huemaurice5
June 19, 2018 10:37 am

This formula is not related about free energy.
To start this new hydro power plant requires the primary energy.
So it will be clear that you have not correctly understood this formula.
There is nothing in the world as free energy.
Cheaper energy in this advanced method does not mean free energy production.
This new advanced formula of all methods and all known energy sources in the world is more important and cost-effective.
Yes, a new industrial revolution will soon begin.
In the following comments, I will publish articles and news reports about this new technology for you.

Reply to  Kambiz Fatehi
June 19, 2018 10:39 am

Change the world with Kurdistan’s industrial revolution
Site: Kurdaneh
By: Kambiz Fatehi:

In the world to producing and making one megawatt power in different power plant on average needs to huge investments from seven hundred to one million dollars for countries to provide their needs such as industrial energy, agriculture and urban consume. Although, we must taking high expenses of fuel consuming of this power plant into account. Now, with invention of new and clear energy of Kurdistan ’s power which is producing through the modern method of sank turbine in seas and dams water and new formula (E>P+1at) by me everything is changed. Although the mentioned science were accepted by many expert and technical people, but as I told and tell, this invention ( Kurdistan ’s power) in all research center in the world is defend able because it is formula based on applicable hydraulic. Thanks to this, most extra expenses in nuclear and fossil fuel power plant in the world will be reduced and removed or this old power plants will be replaced with the new science. Also, scientist will face to a new method in the science of hydroelectric power. Thus, there is no damage to the environment, because this system will be placed in created space with different geometrical volumes pipe in deep of water. Then, they scientifically will connect to the turbines and generator. So, the result will be whole a lot of energy which produced by the play of air and water together and with the optimum use of above formula power cycle production will be complete. And, if this new technology will be installed in dams, even a drop of water won’t be wasted. Namely, with the Kurdistan power invention it’s possible to make one dam to thousands of dam in it and making advantages of all head statistic potential of these self-made dams water in just one dam and getting energy hundred time more. Kurdistan power has a great influence in the world which no one will believe and by passing time people may little by little believe this incredible source of energy even the readers of this paper. The simplest effect of Kurdistan power in the world is, planning of all countries for remove all of their fossil fuel and nuclear power plant. Because, they know the cost of maintenance of this power plant and the risky function of it is too high. Also, getting energy in this power plants jeopardize the environment of countries and the world such as, water pollution level, air and soil also, this pollution is the main reason of most kind of animals and plants extinction. So, Kurdistan powers indeed change the perception of the world toward the simple and normal background of hydroelectric. In this method, high level of energy can be obtained easily from the dams and seas compare to the past methods and use other science for the new method of hydroelectric easily. Moreover, beside preventing global warming, most of the time it reduce build and installment of power transition line and it can lead all today valuable and basic materials, such as, oil and gas industry toward the specific valuable production and related to the energy. Basically, the nice feature of Kurdistan power is use of several parallel and set turbines in a float and balance system and cycle. Other feature is the simple ways of maintaining of this installation. The role of Kurdistan power in its economic is very important because not only, it has an exclusive place in transaction and world energy map, but also, with this invention as a world clean energy pole it become the one important reference and pattern in the world. Further, with this invention it has an exit strategy to free itself from the problem of single production (oil and gas) through presenting policies, transmitting science and knowledge of design and build of this based water (Kurdistan’s) power plant and joins the developed countries and in action with this technology, beside earning privilege of reference country, it has a vital role in all energy formulas in the world and within the world markets it can get benefit from all production of in need countries to the Kurdistan power as an exclusive privilege of its achievement in improve and develop of Kurdistan. In a way that even most of developed countries be in a dream of this place. Of course have a look on practical values of this extremely valuable technology; its values must be mentioned from four aspect of social, cultural, political and especially economic by scientists and experts in the future which is out of the mood of this paper. This is the latest benefit of Kurdistan power invention, and with necessary privilege achievement from foreign governments and companies, cooperation and participation acceptance with them, and sharing the benefit of these companies it can receive hundred times more benefit from present budget of Kurdistan . Also, with creating a mass job opportunity in the world it will be complete. And Kurdistan in a short distance will be a developed country. Thus, energy price will go cheap in Kurdistan and in the world certainly, so, unemployment will fall or destroy and you won’t find anyone who is homeless or suffer from hot or coldness. Also, with should say, as air pollution parameters fall down or abolish, humans food and grain, agriculture will improve and FAOs concerns which being a serious problem will drop. At last world health and hygiene will improve and get better. At the end I must explain that, all world formula after the Kurdistan ’s invention must be revising and define by scientists in different science again. Because, the thing that is important is the humans knowledge and notion effect which is concealed in mentioned practical hydraulic formula. Undoubtedly, Kurdistan power invention must be called Kurdistan industrial revelation. Because, this invention not only, can provide an endless source of energy in the world, but also, it bring the peace, love and friendly massage and a gift from Kurdistan to the world. Actually, Kurdistan power demand a world far from the war and violence that, found on the bases of peace, respect and reconciliation to all nations.

Reply to  Kambiz Fatehi
June 19, 2018 10:39 am

A Kurdish inventor has found a new method for electricity production under water
By: Mohammed Taher
Erbil / Wishe No3 Page16 (A Kurdish Newspaper)
Inventing electricity is supported by Kurdistan Region Government and it is decided to be implemented and at the same time a committee has been formed by the Ministry of Justice so to protect the legal rights of this project to the Kurdistan Region. In Kurdistan still there is the problem of 24 hours day electricity, today a Kurdish inventor wants not only to solve Kurdistan electricity, but also via his invention he can liberate the world as whole from this polluted energy that polluted environment and leads human and animal health into danger. A Kurdish inventor, Kambiz Fatehi has found a new way for producing electricity under water. Although this kind of electricity doesn’t cost much and it doesn’t have any bad effect on the environment. This invention has been supported by council of ministers, ministry of electricity and Salahaddin University and it was decided to implement it and at the same time a committee has been formed by the Ministry of Justice so to protect the legal rights of this project to the benefit of Kurdistan Region. Due to cheapness of the energy that invented by Fatehi, it is not wise from now onwards to drill the earth for extracting oil and gas and to continue the cycle of industry in this way. Due to largeness and effectiveness of this project, so many people in the government and universities of the region do not believe that a Kurdish person can shake the basics of world energy, therefore Kambiz Fatehi has tried for one year to go to the government institutions, the parliament and the university so as to understand this project and as a result of that the significance of this project has been increased in both internally and the world as a whole and implementation decision has been made. According to the opinion of Kambiz Fatehi regarding Einstein’s formula, he believes that Einstein’s formula negative effect on the world, but Fatehi said “I can try to rectify the negative effect of the world by new formula” Up to date, some countries asked this Kurdish inventor and they told him that they can provide him with all the requirements on the condition to implement the project in their countries but he refused them and said “This project is invented by Kurds and it should go down from Kurdistan to the world and its income should be for all Kurdish people” Kambiz Fatehi was paid his attention to all kinds of movement of nature so as to find the best way to obtain clean energy, but one day by chance he looked an accident in a film, then he got the idea of this invention. In this film a submarine body holed, then sea water entered into it quickly as a result of that life of persons in the submarine will be under threat so from that time Kambiz thinks although this idea was very simple and primary but Kambiz takes benefit of his experience in the field of purifying water and turbine and based on other sciences. Later he developed the idea and reached to a stage that he said “ I found the cheapest way of electricity production. It is very cheap that I can say it is free. According to Fatehi’s opinion, Kurdish people via its invention will be the superpower of the world & Kurdistan and will be the owner of this science and the world as a whole and they have to buy this science from Kurdish people. Due to the cheapness of this energy, Kambiz thought it is not wise to drill the ground for extracting oil & gas and the cycle of industry rotates in this way. Constructing atomic station for producing power that humanitarian & environmental disasters have happened may be stopped from now onwards. 80% of global pollution returns to human being and affects them by spreading breath, eye, heart, brain, skin and some other diseases. According to world statistics every year three million people die due to pollution of environment and climate. Although the United Nations has made some limitations for industrial factories and vehicles so as to reduce the pollution of environment, but according to Wikipedia website statistics, for each five persons in the world three of them are under threat of polluted air. According to Kambiz’s idea Einstein’s formula for energy affects world badly, but today this Kurdish inventor say “I try by new formula to rectify the world”. According to Kambiz’s thought, this invention can be a basic for thousands of inventions in the field of industry and lead industry into new clean way and to serve the humanity positively. As Kambiz said oppressed Kurdish people via this invention will be one of the superpower people of the world. Kurdistan will be the owner of this science and the whole world will purchase this science from Kurdish people. Today Kurds in Iraq are happy for finding out (90) milliard barrels of oil under its land. Kambiz believes that if this becomes the source of clean energy in the world, then it will be rich one thousand times than its oil & gas, in spite of that all Kurdish people will be respected throughout the world because their country becomes the source of healthy people. If the Kurds do not get benefit from this opportunity and not register this invention under their name, then other scientists of the world have similar idea and then change this idea into construction, then Kurds not only be the owner of this wealth but also its oil & gas resource cannot buy by good price so as to depend on it. This is not first invention of Kambiz Fatehi, but also he has six inventions more that one of them after studying by scientists in Iran has been awarded a certificate. Kambiz Fatehi is originally from Sina City in eastern Kurdistan and he is the specialist of water purifying. He has been worked in this field for 23 years. As he said that he loves environment and all his inventions are for protection of environment, human & all other creatures. Three of Kambiz’s inventions related to electricity production in a clean way. One of his inventions related to prevention of dust fall that registered in Iran . He also has two other inventions regarding atomic environmental protection field that one of them protect atomic stations and the other protect people from atomic natural sources. *- The invention has patented in department of Justice of Kurdestan of Iraq with No: 952/6 on 12/6/2013.

Erbil / Wishe No3 Page16 (A Kurdish Newspaper), by: Mohammed Taher

Leo Smith
Reply to  Kambiz Fatehi
June 19, 2018 11:43 am


Reply to  Kambiz Fatehi
June 20, 2018 5:47 am

About free energy

Monday, October 1, 2012

For a long time such an option has made the front page of scandal newspapers where the purpose was of course to take consumers for idiots and they would have as much as they want … provided they pay!

We all saw it with the clever scams of ‘renewable energies’ where they launched fabrications of giant wind turbines without having just made a preliminary test with one!

Giant blades that require a solid and heavy frame. Heaviness that prevents him from turning! Hahaha! Even worse, the principle was to catch the strong wind blowing at altitude. Where windmills of 200 meters high! where the blades bend, bend backwards, then descend where the weak wind makes them straighten up, then rise and twist, then go back down and, etc., etc. break! Hahahaha!

14,000 abandoned wind turbines in the United States !

Posted by Tory Aardvark
Monday, October 7, 2013



Do not laugh, it’s the taxpayer who pays!
Note the difference between windmills or 10-meter far-west windmills that were used to pump water with their 18 blades. Blades that completely filled the disc so that the air that passes can not escape unlike giant wind turbines with 3 blades and the wind that passes between! Hahaha!


But, the most important question is: “Is there FREE, EFFECTIVE and CONTINUOUS energy, that works 7/7 days and 24/24 hours and that DOES NOT POLLUTE and where we can live next door WITHOUT DANGER?


Yes, and it has existed for millions of years almost everywhere on Earth! But why would you discover it only now if it is so sure, so abundant, without stop and above all free? Because the authorities have never wanted to stop pollution or sometimes abysmal expenses and prefer to import energy in order to perpetuate the impoverishment of consumers. This free energy is called river energy. Paddle wheels (large ‘cylinders’) occupy the river from one side to the other with only in the middle a passage arranged to allow the barges to circulate freely. It is this spinning force that generates free and perpetual electricity. These paddle wheels can be installed every 300 or 500 meters and can also be built under existing bridges or even serve as bridges themselves. There is no consumption of water and silently produce what every citizen expects from intelligent progress.

In addition, I became interested in electric cars and offered electric cars … without batteries !

Without batteries ??! Is it possible ?


Yes and … you have already driven! (we bet ?). These electric cars just want to move freely in the city. Wondering how is it possible ? Do you remember trams with their pantograph and catenary similar to today’s electric trains just like those bumper cars or ‘self-scooters’ that you drove to the carnival ?! Well, this function is entirely possible! ‘Enough’ to put an electrified fence 3 m from the ground, and all vehicles equipped with a vertical ‘cane’ can even recharge their ‘mini-battery’ to go into dead ends or other non-electrified places and also serve as a supplement to gas engine that you can use to drive on motorways or in the countryside!

Like what driving in the city in silence (light car!) And without pollution is quite possible!

Deception corn ethanol: How politicians and agribusiness have tried to silence critics and promote a bad idea


AAA says ethanol fuel can damage some cars, EPA asks to remove it from the pumps


Did you say ‘electric cars’?


Where the unsold cars of the world will die

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 16/05/2014 20:02 -0400



Reply to  huemaurice5
June 20, 2018 3:43 pm

You did not understand what i did say!
I did not talk about free energy. I have discovered a new scientific formula.
I’m talking about a scientific answer to a scientific question.
With this new scientific formula, our need to all sources of energy such as wind, the sun, fossil fuels and atomic energy will be very low.
This global issue means starting a new industrial revolution in the world.

June 19, 2018 7:23 am

How can the global temperature rise now?
comment image

Reply to  ren
June 19, 2018 1:01 pm

I’d suggest ‘because it doesn’t depend on sunspots that much’.

Reply to  Hugs
June 19, 2018 1:54 pm

Are you sure, if the SST falls?
comment image

Steven Zell
June 19, 2018 7:24 am

When will Hansen publicly admit that he was wrong?

June 19, 2018 7:46 am

I assume candles on the cake are out of the question?

Reply to  Kenji
June 19, 2018 8:05 am

Candles are OK as long as they don’t produce CO2…perhaps LED candles powered by little solar cells or wind generators.

June 19, 2018 8:14 am

It is wrong to describe James Hansen as a scientist. He is a political activist who shuns the scientific method.

June 19, 2018 9:47 am

You knew this was coming…

“James Hansen wishes he wasn’t so right about global warming”
(June 18, 2018 by Seth Borenstein)

“Hansen, now 77, regrets not being “able to make this story clear enough for the public.””

June 19, 2018 9:51 am

He cant even fiddle GISSTEMP to fit the ‘business as usual’ scenario,. What an utter failure!

Leo Smith
June 19, 2018 11:42 am

Dear Nick Stokes

Get a proper job.

June 19, 2018 2:48 pm

I don’t want him to feel left out, so here’s a shout out for climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer. He was there along side Hansen in 1988, and also getting it wrong.


June 19, 2018 7:12 pm

“On June 23, 1988, a top NASA scientist told Congress and the world that global warming had arrived.”

Wrong. He told Congress. The world pays no attention to what goes on in that talk shop. It was Margaret Thatcher who told the world.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights