Hansen’s 1988 global-warming prediction was thrice observation

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

James Hansen is often debited with having stirred up so much alarm with his notorious 1988 prediction of runaway global warming in front of the U.S. Senate that IPeCaC was hastily founded later that year, so as to Save The Planet.

His prediction ran to 2020. How, then, did fantasy-land compare with more than two decades of sober, observed reality? The graph, zeroed so that the 1988 HadCRUT4 observed anomaly lies between Hansen’s three scenarios, shows that observed warming was closest to Hansen’s Scenario C.

However, the assumption underlying Scenario C is that everyone would be so scared following Hansen’s Senate testimony that what is now called “net-zero” would be achieved by 2000. Well, it wasn’t. And it won’t be, even by 2050. The chief reason is discernible in the Texas electricity grid collapse.

The Lone Star State, which ought to have had more common sense, decided that once it had carpeted the state with windmills (14th-century technology to fail to solve a 21st-century non-problem) and solar panels (produced by slave labor in China) it could reduce its dispatchable thermal grid capacity.

However, as any grid manager will tell you, you can’t do that. Not the least of the reasons why unreliables are so cripplingly expensive is that it is necessary to maintain the entire pre-existing grid regardless of how many unreliables are bolted on to it. Unreliables, therefore, inflict not only a deadweight cost but also a deadweight surplus capacity to the grid, to say nothing of the costly instability caused by giving unreliables precedence over thermal in meeting demand.

Texas took just 4 Gigawatts of reliables offline. But then, when all the unreliables failed during peak demand in freezing weather, there was not enough dispatchable electricity to keep the grid alive.

Hansen’s business-as-usual scenario A is now universally recognized, even among the Thermageddonites, to have been a baseless and absurd exaggeration. It predicts two or three times as much warming as has happened. As the chart below shows, notwithstanding trillions spent, CO2 emissions have exceeded IPeCaC’s business-as-usual emissions scenario in 1990, so the failure of the world to warm at anything like the Scenario A rate cannot be attributed to emissions reduction.

Yet it is on exaggerations such as Scenario A that the global-warming scam was founded, and it is on such exaggerations that it is maintained – for now, but perhaps not for much longer.

5 60 votes
Article Rating
315 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Toby Nixon
April 20, 2021 10:14 pm

“[F]or now, but perhaps not for much longer.” From your mouth to God’s ears, Lord Monckton. But I’m curious how you think that will come about. My observation is that climate hysteria in our local area (Washington state, central Puget Sound area in particular) is as strong as ever. I don’t sense even a smidgen of doubt among legislative and executive leadership as to the rectitude of their positions. Rather than being cautious, they are plunging full speed ahead into creating an economy-destroying carbon tax and low carbon fuel standard that are going to drive up the price of gasoline and diesel by 50-60 cents per gallon within a year. I would love for you to be correct and that this will all collapse by some sudden sanity, but I’m just not seeing it. How will it come about, when the fearmongering is all about gaining power rather than sincerely doing anything about the planet, and science really doesn’t matter to these people?

Dennis G Sandberg
Reply to  Toby Nixon
April 20, 2021 10:49 pm

“not much longer” will not be until after Biden/Harris/Pelosi/Schumer dump at least a $trilliion on sunshine, breezes and lithium storage, wreck our economy and end the dollar as the “world currency”. But it is encouraging to see that Germany and China have substantially reduced incentives for this worth less than nothing junk.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
April 21, 2021 12:19 am

And the majority of Americans deserve exactly what they’re getting. They allowed the Democrats to cause this mess. Unless they get Trump or someone very much like him back in power the US will be taking it’s orders from China by mid century. The government is completely incompetent.

John Bell
Reply to  Rory Forbes
April 21, 2021 5:52 am

Rory that election was stolen, it was a coup d’etat, we Americans wanted Trump.

Paul S.
Reply to  John Bell
April 21, 2021 8:27 am

Indeed, 100% agree with you Rory

Paul S.
Reply to  Paul S.
April 21, 2021 8:28 am

Excuse me, I agree with John

Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Bell
April 21, 2021 9:52 am

The Democrats did everything but take out full page ads about what they were going to do. Both Pelosi and O’Biden said openly that the election was fixed, yet nothing was done to protect the people’s right to a fair election. Even the judiciary were in on it. Fear took over, just as it did in the Floyd verdict.

ATheoK
Reply to  Rory Forbes
April 21, 2021 3:27 pm

The previously corrupted Courts, military, FBI, CIA, Department of State, EPA and apparently multiple state’s election departments are what made the difference.

  • Evidence was presented in video,
  • witnesses,
  • physical evidence,
  • statistical evidence,
  • evidence that votes were electronically switched,
  • evidence that allegedly offline ballot tabulating voting machines were offline instead were proven to be online and under control of outsiders,
  • and in many other ways;
  • Military refused to protect voting areas, streets and voters,
  • state election departments refused to consider evidence presented.
  • Courts refused to allow court cases to proceed,
  • FBI refused any action at all against democrats with senior FBI executives refusing to consider or recognize illegal voting, false documents, repeated scans of illegal ballots.

Yet, you act as if it was President Trump’s fault or that of his supporters.

The trouble with the fraud arrayed against President Trump was because they were all complicit with massive fraud.

Trillions of dollars were at risk and career businessmen and politicians were at risk of imprisonment.
Meaning that corrupt individuals and organizations were willing to put Billions into play at keeping that corruption going.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  ATheoK
April 21, 2021 4:38 pm

I agree with all of that. I watched it in real time, but it should never have come to that in the 1st place. People keep underestimating who corrupt the Democrats are and what they are capable of. It wasn’t Trump’s fault and I never suggested it was. It’s the fault of all those who sat back and let this happen. Contrary to popular myth, the President has far less authority than people believe. He has power, but little authority.

You’re right, there was a conspiracy as well as complicity. However I watched people just give up their rights, like the poll watchers (we call them scrutineers here). There was open fraud. It was their job to shut down the polling place if need be, upon evidence of irregularities.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rory Forbes
April 22, 2021 5:49 am

“People keep underestimating how corrupt the Democrats are and what they are capable of.”

This is one of the chief failiings of conservatives. The nonsense the Left puts out sounds so laughable that conservatives, over the years, have just laughed rather than taking those fools seriously. As a result, the Left has taken over all the levers of power in society. They control the narrative, and whoever controls the narrative, controls the nation.

The good news is conservatives are starting to wake up to the fact the the Left is bound and determined to destroy the United States, and are starting to push back, and it looks like to me that the pushback is picking up a little bit of steam.

Last edited 3 months ago by Tom Abbott
Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 22, 2021 10:12 am

You nailed it. It appears to me that most conservatives are just plain folks, god fearing, hard working and free of the guile needed to be politically savvy. The Democrats have used their lack of political sophistication against them because their goal is not a comfortable, well run country, with opportunities for all. Their goal is power and complete control.

I hope we haven’t left the “pushing back” too late.

hornblower
Reply to  John Bell
April 21, 2021 10:36 am

Global warming is exaggerated but Trump lost the election because he was an incompetent boob. Convince people with good science not with conspiracy theories.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  hornblower
April 21, 2021 11:27 am

Why does the US election software store votes as floating-point real numbers instead of integers?

ATheoK
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
April 21, 2021 3:34 pm

Purposed design feature of Dominion Software; for the benefit of leftists, socialists, communists and corrupt governments everywhere.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  ATheoK
April 21, 2021 9:02 pm

None of the no-fraud mouthpieces will even try to answer this question.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
April 22, 2021 6:08 am

Good question.

Fractions of a person voting. What a concept!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  hornblower
April 21, 2021 1:52 pm

I understand I’m speaking to someone with access to only limited right brain function, but clearly you’re an avid believer in unicorns and faeries. Trump didn’t lose the election, especially not with +75 million votes. Furthermore, he was far from incompetent. He got more actual work done than any president in recent memory.

His record stands for itself. There was a conspiracy and it wasn’t theoretical.

ATheoK
Reply to  hornblower
April 21, 2021 3:32 pm

Complete BS.
President Trump accomplished more in his first two years than any President did during their entire terms since FDR.

By 2020, that was recognized by more than 77 million voters.
The corruption behind Biden is one of the most infamous political actions since Brutus helped assassinate Caesar.

One must also take into account that President Trump accomplished so much in spite of democrats conducting their scorched Earth fraudulent trials against President Trump and Mitch McConnell slow walking legislation and appointments.

Gord
Reply to  hornblower
April 21, 2021 4:59 pm

Trump is more competent than Obama-Biden.

2hotel9
Reply to  hornblower
April 21, 2021 6:33 pm

So you are saying he should have stolen the election like the Democrat Party did?

Simon
Reply to  2hotel9
April 21, 2021 11:16 pm

Trump tried to steal it, but being the loser he turned out to be failed. What utter humiliation it must have been for a man who mocks others’ failures.

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
April 22, 2021 4:35 am

You are a comical little turd and mocking your failure is quite entertaining. Mocking failure is one mechanism to encourage people to stop failing, one that has clearly failed with you.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
April 22, 2021 6:13 am

Trump doesn’t look too humiliated to me.

The people around him claim he is working just as hard as he always does, focusing on getting Republicans elected in 2022, and possibly himself in 2024.

Considering what Trump is up against, it’s a miracle he is still in the game. Trump is the miracle man.

Just what you didn’t want to hear, I’ll bet.

2hotel9
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 22, 2021 9:05 am

I expect the leftists to procure a Lee Harvey or Sirhan Sirhan pretty soon since they have not removed him politically. DJT’s personal security is quite good to have blocked them thus far.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 22, 2021 12:55 pm

The people around him claim he is working just as hard as he always does,”
I saw that interview. Could Hannity have crawled any further up Trumps bottom.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 22, 2021 12:56 pm

Trump is the miracle man.”
I’ll give you that. It’s a miracle he ever became president given he got fewer votes than Clinton. But we moved on when she lost which is what Trumpeteers need to do now.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  hornblower
April 22, 2021 6:03 am

Trump was a little bit too competent for the Left. They were desperate to get him out of office. So desperate, they decided to break the law in an effort to prevent him from getting elected, and after he was elected, they did everything they could to undermine his presidency, and are continuing the attacks to this very day.

Trump went a long way towards dismantling the socialist agenda in the United States while fighting off oppostion from every corner. Even so, he still had the Left crying.

Trump will just have to come back in and do it all again after 2024. Or maybe a majority Republican House of Representatives will decide they want Trump as Speaker of the House in 2023. Trump can start the socialist cleanup project two years earlier.

The first thing Speaker Trump should do is authorize investigations of Biden and his traitorous actions in using the federal government to attack his political opponents. Biden is the one who suggested using the Logan Act against General Flynn. Biden was right in the thick of all these conspiracies to pin something on Trump, using government power as a weapon. He is a traitor to his nation.

Then Trump (or whoever is Republican speaker) should investigate the influence peddling by the Biden family over the years.

And continue the investigations of the Obama-Biden administration and Hillary Clinton.

That ought to get the Leftists going!

There are a lot of Democrat criminal politicians running around loose who should be in jail.

Last edited 3 months ago by Tom Abbott
Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 22, 2021 12:58 pm

and after he was elected, they did everything they could to undermine his presidency, and are continuing the attacks to this very day.”
Trump was pretty good at undermining himself on a daily basis.

Phil.
Reply to  John Bell
April 22, 2021 7:04 am

No Trump attempted a coup d’etat, fortunately it failed.

2hotel9
Reply to  Phil.
April 22, 2021 9:06 am

Ahh, aren’t you a special little snowflake, all triggered and what not. Just so precious.

Simon
Reply to  2hotel9
April 22, 2021 12:59 pm

So funny the right calling the left snowflakes when it is them who had the temper tantrum and got all “we didn’t lose” when they lost a fair election. Funny world.

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
April 23, 2021 5:09 am

You lie more than a rug, typical leftard behavior.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
April 25, 2021 4:38 am

Simon sees what he wants to see with regard to climate and politics. Maybe we all do to a certain extent, but some of us are worse at it than others.

I read an article yesterday that claimed not one illegal alien was denied a vote in Arizona in the 2021 election. Supposedly, about 15,000 illegal aliens illegally voted in the Arizona presidential elections. Biden won by 10,000 votes.

The audit of the Arizona vote is going to continue despite the best efforts of the Democrats to keep the information under wraps. Why would Democrats object to scrutinizing the votes? We all know why, don’t we.

Anyway, it’s not over yet, although Mike Lindell is not covering himself in glory. He says he has evidence of a stolen election that he was going to start releasing last week, but it’s nowhere to be found as of today. Comeon Mike, don’t be just another blowhard who can’t back up his claims. Let’s see what you have.

I suspect the Arizona vote analysis will show numerous illegal votes were cast, many more than would be required to swing the election one way or another. And I think it is a good bet that most of the voting fraud took place on the Democrat side. They are the party of organized criminals.

Arizona voter analysis in the near future, and the other Battleground States to follow.

We won’t be able to oust Traitor Biden just because the vote was rigged, unless we can prove Biden was directly involved, which I would say is a practical impossiblity in the short time before the 2024 elections.

But if conservatives can show definite voter fraud, then this outrage will give impetus to conservative voters and other voters who respect the rule of law, to vote for conservatives and Republicans in coming elections and throw the criminal Democrats out of office and get this country back on track and away from ruinous socialism.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 25, 2021 6:22 am

I read an article yesterday that claimed not one illegal alien was denied a vote in Arizona in the 2021 election.”

Right up there with “People are sayin’…”

Since you read it, and WUWT allows links, then please document it here. NOT sayin’ that you didn’t read it – you probably did. But I would undoubtedly get a chuckle out of the resulting provenance check.

Or just add it to your list of ignored documentation requests….

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Phil.
April 22, 2021 11:13 am

Cite?

TonyG
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
April 22, 2021 1:31 pm

“Cite?”

His imagination.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
April 25, 2021 6:25 am

Cite?

Doesn’t work that way. Phil is only referring to the utter lack of evidence to the vapid charges of voter fraud in the 2020 election. It is up to YOU to document otherwise…

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Phil.
April 25, 2021 4:22 am

I see you don’t understand the definition of “coup d’etat”.

Jon Salmi
Reply to  Rory Forbes
April 21, 2021 12:15 pm

I agree with you Rory, except in the timing. If Biden takes office for a second term, this country is doomed. It will be head for the hills or start learning Chinese as America becomes China’s most eastern province.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Jon Salmi
April 21, 2021 1:55 pm

Only a couple of months in and China is already eating America’s lunch and starting it’s bullying. O’Biden won’t even complete this term, never mind another. His “supporters” are already regretting their choice.

Simon
Reply to  Rory Forbes
April 21, 2021 11:17 pm

At least Biden is standing up to Russia and not brown nosing Putin.

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
April 22, 2021 4:37 am

Faux Joe Xiden has his nose firmly planted up Putin’s попку.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
April 22, 2021 6:23 am

Biden isn’t going to stand up to Russia too much. He might put some sanctions on a few people, but he’s not going to do anything game-changing, because if he did, Putin might bring up the $3.5 million bribe Joe’s son Hunter received from the Mayor of Moscow’s wife.

I imagine Putin also knows as much as anyone about Biden’s other corrupt deals.

The same goes for the Chicoms.

Our most dangerous enemies have Biden’s number, rendering him ineffective at pushing the Chicoms and Russians around.

Biden was responsible for allowing the Islamic Terror Army to run loose in the Middle East, k!lling or displacing millions of innocent people in the process, after his and Obama’s premature troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Now Biden is going to do it all again in Afghanistan. As Biden’s former Defense Secretary Gates said of Biden: He has been wrong on every foreign policy and national security decision of the last 40 years.

Joe has not improved any. We are in for a rough ride for at least the next two years.

Just remember: When the federal government gets out of control, that States still have their constitutional rights, and I imagine they would go to blows over someone trying to take them away.

New Mexico’s Republican governor has called out the New Mexico National Guard to guard the New Mexico southern border the Biden administration refuses to guard. More to follow.

Last edited 3 months ago by Tom Abbott
Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 22, 2021 12:51 pm

Putin might bring up the $3.5 million bribe Joe’s son Hunter received from the Mayor of Moscow’s wife.”
Ummm that is fake news Tom. Already Biden has pushed harder on Putin than Trump ever did.

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
April 23, 2021 5:08 am

No, it is not, Hunter himself has admitted he took the money, he just claims it was payment for services and refuses to list what those were. Trump smacked the f**k out of Russia and Putin personally. Faux Joe Xiden has expelled some embassy personnel and mumbled some incoherent crap about how we all got to get along, man. And now Faux Joe Xiden is collapsing to his knees before the Mad Mullahs and signalling he is going to send them more pallets of cash for their nuke weapons program. You leftards really are that stupid.

Simon
Reply to  2hotel9
April 23, 2021 12:38 pm

Trump smacked the f**k out of Russia and Putin personally”
You mean when on the world stage he said contradicting his own secret service “My people came to me, [Director of National Intelligence] Dan Coats came to me and some others saying they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin, he just said it’s not Russia,” “I will say this, I don’t see any reason why it would be.”
Yeah he really gave him one public bottom smack there.

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
April 24, 2021 4:35 am

No, I mean by direct sanctions against Russia and Putin, sanctions which Faux Joe Xiden removed with his second set of Executive Orders. Who has their face buried in Putin’s попку? Yea, Faux Joe, thats who. He is also opening wide for Khamenei’s آلت

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
April 25, 2021 4:52 am

The $3.5 million bribe is fake news? You need to keep up, Simon.

Trump gave Ukraine weapons they could use against a future Russian invasion. Obama and Biden gave them pillows and blankets.

Trump placed sanctions on Russians. Now Biden has placed some sanctions on Russians.

I don’t see that as Biden being tougher on the Russians than Trump.

And of course, Biden is doing Russia a big favor by crippling the U.S. fossil fuel industry, which hurts the U.S. economy and gives extra money to one of the most dangerous regimes on the planet.

Let’s see what Biden does when Putin instigates violence in the region. Obama-Biden gave up Crimea the last time. What will Biden give up this time?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 25, 2021 4:45 am

Correction: That should be Arizona’s governor who called out his National Guard over the border crisis.

t port
Reply to  Simon
April 22, 2021 8:21 am

The Ukraine is really Europe’s problem, not ours. As divided as our country is these days it is hard to see why we need to be so obsessed with Russia.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Jon Salmi
April 22, 2021 9:22 am

I agree, except that China is only interested in cutting down the stature of the U. S. in order to burnish and enhance the status of China, if they are able to accomplish that, they will have no further interest in the U. S., certainly not enough to occupy it anyway.

2hotel9
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
April 23, 2021 4:56 am

No need for them to occupy, they simply buy the Joe Bidens and John Kerrys and Nannee Pelosis to do their bidding, as they are right now.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  2hotel9
April 25, 2021 4:56 am

Yes, that’s what the Chicoms are doing right now and have been doing for many years.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
April 25, 2021 4:55 am

The Chicoms might be biting off more than they can chew by trying to occupy the United States. Remember: Americans have guns and don’t like people telling them what to do.

Van Doren
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
April 21, 2021 1:56 am

Germany will likely get a green chancellor this autumn and will then go completely crazy.

UNGN
Reply to  Van Doren
April 21, 2021 4:09 am

If France elects Le Pen and Germany choses Baerbock, what a reversal of fortune that will be.

I’ll know I’m popping popcorn.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Van Doren
April 21, 2021 1:57 pm

I always thought that Germans were an intelligent group. Apparently not, considering they still haven’t caught on to the fraud. Mind you, they never could say no to a dictator or turn down propaganda.

Jeffery P
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
April 21, 2021 6:04 am

There’s no money in opposing climate change hysteria. Politicians run on money. No donations, no support. Conversely, when the big money boys back something, they put their money where their blowholes are.

Cynicism aside, don’t forget that politicians and bureaucrats have consumed nothing but climate hysteria stories for nigh 3 decades. Propaganda, repeated endlessly without regard to facts wins a lot of minds.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Jeffery P
April 21, 2021 8:21 am

Don’t forget politicians want to be seen to be doing something – usually not for our benefit.

marcjf
Reply to  Toby Nixon
April 21, 2021 12:30 am

I’ve given up debating global warming with people who are clearly brainwashed and can’t count. They don’t want to be confused with things like facts, data and mumbers. It is easier to stick to less controversial topics like racism or Trump.

Jeffery P
Reply to  marcjf
April 21, 2021 6:06 am

You can’t debate someone who’s position is based upon emotions, not facts. Only when somebody’s opinion is based upon facts and reason can they be persuaded.

Otherwise, as you discovered, it’s like trying to win a debate with the village idiot.

Observer
Reply to  marcjf
April 21, 2021 6:19 pm

What’s the alternative to debating them, though?

We have a duty to at least try to dissuade the lemmings from hurling themselves off the cliff (and taking us with them)

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Toby Nixon
April 21, 2021 1:43 am

Global Warming will go out with a whimper, not a Bang…

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Gregory Woods
April 21, 2021 6:06 am

Indeed, as the CAGW meme fails,one by one the acolytes will sneak out the Church’s backdoor. If accosted they will deny they were “e’er a Tory”.
No one will be held accountable for misleading the world to spend billions on a crisis that never was. And then the next non-crisis will loom and we will repeat the sham. Z’war immer so.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
April 22, 2021 6:40 am

If the alarmists were smart, they would advocate for confirming Dr. Happer’s theory that CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is currently “saturated” and this means that adding additional CO2, above current levels, will not cause the atmospheric temperatures to rise. In other words there is a limit to how much warmth CO2 can add to our atmosphere, and we are near that limit today.

If this proves out to be true, and don’t underestimate Dr. Happer, then the alarmists can say they were right about everything up to this point and they were not aware of this cap on CO2 warmth, which has just been discovered, and are willing to incorporate it into their theory of global warming.

So the alarmists can give up their quest to reduce CO2 gracefully, because there is no longer a need to do so, and we can all get on about our lives without wasting $Trillions of dollars on windmills and industrial solar and rasing taxes and gasoline prices to pay for all that stuff.

There’s your “out”, Alarmists. Take it, and save us all a lot of trouble and costs.

Patrick
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 22, 2021 5:21 pm

The alarmists don’t want to admit to any truth that takes away their excuse for regulating our energy and industrial sectors. Any data, they will stretch to be as alarmists as possible and any fix that is based on technology will be rejected as ‘not enough’ … ONLY giving control to the benighted elites will be sufficient ‘cure’.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Gregory Woods
April 22, 2021 9:34 am

Kinda like… does anyone remember the “acid rain” hysteria? We could count on at least one headline a week regarding acid rain, what it has eaten now and what it will eat in the future. And then the headlines tapered off until now we don’t even hear about it all anymore. Nothing actually changed, no problem was solved, though some defenseless animals may have been harmed in the filming of all the documentaries, but apparently the headline pickers must have decided they weren’t selling any more copies with it, and they turned to something else. Probably because it was replaced by the Global Warming™ hysteria. Which then automatically asks the question, what Hysteria will replace Global Warming™?

kwinterkorn
Reply to  Toby Nixon
April 21, 2021 10:55 am

If the theoretic and historic work on the effect of the ocean currents on climate—-and specifically the PDO and AO—-hold true, and if we are entering negative phases of those oscillations, then perhaps we will have a decade or two of cooling.

Then we can start fighting the hysterics who will predict that the next ice age is near and we are still all going to die. (The new hysterics will likely be the same people as the current crop.)

Add in a quiet sun. There’s hope that the Earth will help free the current alarmists from their fears, and us from their oppressions.

Gordon
April 20, 2021 10:18 pm

Given the harm that Hansen’s prediction has caused surely our trusted Government representatives will hold thorough investigation on his malfeasance. Just in case here is:/
sarc

Lurker Pete
April 20, 2021 10:33 pm

Hansen was certainly a trend setter, the increasing trend in the amount of post-normal junk climate science has increased expotentially, far exceeding everyones expectations!

S.K.
Reply to  Lurker Pete
April 21, 2021 2:48 pm

Trump was reining in the junk science until China elected Biden who then kicked open the door to the asylum resulting an exponential growth in propaganda. Four years of Biden will destroy the US economy.

commieBob
April 20, 2021 11:16 pm

… all the unreliables failed during peak demand in freezing weather …

In the software industry there is the joke that something is a feature not a bug. The claim has been made that, when the unreliables failed to provide energy when it was most needed, they were operating as designed. The people making that, actually factual when you think about it, claim say the fault lay with the conventional grid assets. If the wind and sun don’t provide power when you most need it, they are indeed functioning exactly as designed.

I struggle to categorize the above excuse making. Calling it Sophistry would be an insult to the Sophists. Pythonesque maybe? That doesn’t feel right. I think Kafka came closest to nailing it … well maybe Orwell.

Last edited 3 months ago by commieBob
Bill Treuren
Reply to  commieBob
April 20, 2021 11:27 pm

So to give this some perspective Hansen’s predicted business as usual underestimate the actual CO2 released and still we are 0.8C under the BAU outcome. imagine if we had stopped the CO2 emission in 2000 we would be 0.8C lower or more heading to an ice age, we have been saved by the Chinese.
what a fool!!

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Bill Treuren
April 22, 2021 9:41 am

Except that actual facts have demonstrated that ECS is well below Hansen’s estimate (I think it is below even the lowest current research-produced value, and may even be negative) and therefore it’s not a linear reduction. Warming was half what Hansen predicted, if we had actually reduced CO2 levels the actually temperature rise may have been half of the current. And then again, maybe it would be exactly the same, the ECS could equal 0 (zero).

Rich Davis
Reply to  commieBob
April 21, 2021 5:37 pm

I believe that the term you seek is griffesque

Rod Evans
April 20, 2021 11:30 pm

Even when the scale of their errant predictions are pointed out to them the CAGW do not accept they are wrong.
The favourite trick they deploy, is to change the supposed objective from climate concern to emissions concern.
Their bizarre logic tells them even if the wrong outcome is produced it was the right decision because it is for the greater good.
I am still waiting for the RSPB, (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) to come back to me and explain why they are silent about the constant destruction of raptors and other protected flying creatures, on the turbine blades of wind power industrial sites, across our previously natural unspoiled land here in the UK.

Zigmaster
April 21, 2021 12:01 am

The frightening thing is you decided to toss a dice to make predictions about future temperatures you’d be likely to have been more accurate than the Global warming gurus. Yet these gurus get paraded around as experts whose only expertise has been that they are expert at getting things wrong. The lack of accountability for their advice has cost governments around the world trillions of Dollars of funds that could’ve been better spent, building hospitals, schools, infrastructure. There is a very real opportunity cost , above and beyond the cost in rising prices of energy and the reduction in grid reliability.

Spetzer86
Reply to  Zigmaster
April 21, 2021 5:22 am

Hospitals and social support are only better ways of spending money if your underlying goal is to preserve life.

LdB
Reply to  Spetzer86
April 21, 2021 6:03 pm

The typical lefty stupid delusion … ready for a lesson if the people weren’t injured or sick without jobs or have disabilities you would not need hospitals or social support … it’s not a complex idea.

So your best spend of money has always been education, medical research and economic stimulus because it eliminates or at least reduces your two problems.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Zigmaster
April 21, 2021 6:14 am

Paul Ehrlich has made an entire career out of being wrong. And they still trot him out as a trained monkey … errr ..expert.

April 21, 2021 12:04 am

The usual nonsense, obtained by patching together just about anything that will exaggerate the case. Firstly, Hansen did not predict that scenario A would happen. He did (once) call it the business as usual case, but didn’t say there would be no change. He described scenario B as probably the most plausible. But the main thing is, he described the scenarios quite precisely in terms of the expected concentrations (and thus forcings) of GHGs. Steve McIntyre goes through the scenario details here, linking to a post the previous day. He has the exact concentration numbers, and gives graphs. He concludes

“As to how Hansen’s model is faring, I need to do some more analysis. But it looks to me like forcings are coming in below even Scenario B projections. So I agree that it’s unfair for Hansen critics to compare Scenario A temperature results to actual outcomes as a test of the model mechanics.”

My own analysis of the scenarios is here; I agree with SM. 

An obvious trick here is the use the spike of HADCRUT4 1988 as the base. As you can see, that results in starting the data from a base well below projections in the years 1989-1995. Hansen of course was not predicting HAD 4 (why 4 and not 5? you might ask). He was actually predicting the land-station-based index of his 1987 paper, which became the GISS Met stations index. That is what he used on his own prediction graph.

Anyway, here his Hansen’s real graph, from his 1988 paper. I have superimposed:
HAD 4 (red)
GISS land/ocean (orange)
GISS met stations (purple). 
The latter matches scenario B well; the others come in a little below B, as Steve Mc said the real GHG forcing did.
comment image

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 12:26 am

Utter nonsense. It’s all utter nonsense. Get a different hobby. Quit the pretense of doing science. All you people are doing it mental masturbation and we’re tired of watching it. Clearly none of you know a bloody thing. You’ve all lost the plot yet you insist on taking each other seriously as if you were refining some well understood concept. Light a candle, you’re in pitch blackness.

Simon
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 12:45 am

Nick is correct.
Scenario A was exponentially increasing emissions. Scenario B was a relatively constant rate of increase. Monkton is taking advantage of a temperature drop to shift the base.

Hansen1988vsGISSthru2016.jpg
fred250
Reply to  Simon
April 21, 2021 1:46 am

GISS is the NONSENSE, It is deliberately manipulated to follow the AGW SCAM

You KNOW ITS A LIE, slimon.. so stop trying to pretend that you don’t..

The actual REAL global temperature NOW is no higher than in 1988 or 1983

GISS IS A LIE…. and those that use it, KNOW THAT.

DISHONESTY is all the AGW scam has left.

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
Simon
Reply to  fred250
April 21, 2021 11:36 am

If that were true, there would be disparity between GISS, HadCRUT, BEST, and JML. They are almost identical.
Or you could compare apples with oranges and use the satellite tropospheric proxies. Similar result.
Typing in bold does not make statements true.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Simon
April 21, 2021 2:11 pm

Typing in bold does not make statements true.

Hey … just like peer review. That doesn’t make statements true either.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  fred250
April 22, 2021 3:53 pm

GISS is the NONSENSE, It is deliberately manipulated to follow the AGW SCAM”

Yep.

mkelly
Reply to  Simon
April 21, 2021 5:46 am

Simon if you are correct there must be two values for the specific heat of air and carbon dioxide. One without IR involved and one with IR involved. Can you provide those values?

Joseph Campbell
Reply to  mkelly
April 21, 2021 9:42 am

You and me, mkelly, want to see that reconciliation…

Simon
Reply to  mkelly
April 21, 2021 11:37 am

Hansen’s 1988 paper is extremely detailed in the model’s construction. Have a read sometime.

fred250
Reply to  Simon
April 21, 2021 1:20 pm

so NO you cannot provide as asked.. ZERO content as always, simple simon. !

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Simon
April 21, 2021 2:04 pm

Extreme detail doesn’t make a paper true, valid or even interesting.

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
April 21, 2021 6:38 pm

It is completely wrong, but hey, it is very detailed. You are an idiot.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Simon
April 21, 2021 8:11 am

And, to increase the scare factor, he did not apply the two theoretical eruptions to Scenario A. To suggest greater benefit than possible from things we can control, he shined us on with adding the effects of something we can’t control in Scenario C.

paul courtney
Reply to  Simon
April 21, 2021 1:07 pm

Mr. Stokes: Why didn’t you correct Simon’s “exponential” reference? As Sunsettommy quotes from Hanson below, A was not ” exponential” growth in emissions, it was in fact exactly what Hanson called it (“once”, Mr. Stokes says- we begin to see why Simon is not corrected), a continuance of growth “typical” of the prior twenty years. Hanson apologists are always trying to waive off the idea that emissions grew from ’88 to ’08 very much like ’68 to ’88, so temps should be like A but they are not.
The graph he tries to credit to Steve M is actually reprinted by Steve M from something called “real climate”. The graph minimizes the difference between Hanson’s A and B to the point where you wonder how Hanson distinguished between them, but we can see the difference clearly in Hanson’s charts. This is a great exercise in obfuscation

Reply to  paul courtney
April 22, 2021 2:56 am

Scenario A was exactly exponentially increasing emissions. He quantified emissions as the annual increase in ppm, and scenario A had it increasing by 1.5% pre year, indefinitely. Scenario B switches to linear increase in 2010. I set out the arithmetic in detail, with references, here.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Simon
April 21, 2021 2:30 pm

Simon’s me-too comment is disingenuous on all counts. First, it matters not what exaggerations Hansen made to produce his deliberately alarming business-as-usual scenario. Whether the exaggerations were of future CO2 emissions or of climate sensitivity (or, more probably, of both), they were incompetent and now-disproven overstatements. They were wrong, and grossly so.

Secondly, I had not “taken advantage of a temperature drop to shift the base”: I had simply centered the HadCRUT data to the Hansen predictions at 1988, the year when he made them. In fact, there was a temperature increase in 1988, followed by a drop.

Thirdly, if anything Stokes’ confusing and hard-to-read graph, which uses the very poor-quality original graph rather than my far clearer but accurate reproduction of it, pushes the HadCRUT data further below the Hansen predictions than I had done. It is difficult to be sure, because Hansen’s graph – for whatever reasons – was of unusually poor quality.

The bottom line is that Hansen’s business-as-usual scenario was a flagrant exaggeration. Arrhenius (1906) and Callendar (1938) had both gotten their ECS predictions in the right ballpark, so there was no excuse for Hansen’s ineptitude. He ought to have known better. However, he used a computer model. And, as Pat Frank has definitively shown (and with no peer-reviewed refutation since 2019), propagation of uncertainty in the models renders them unfit to make any global-warming predictions.

Hansen was wrong. Get over it.

Simon
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 21, 2021 9:01 pm

The issue with estimating ECS is that we don’t know how long it takes to reach equilibrium and we won’t reach equilibrium until net greenhouse gas emissions are approximately zero. Arrhenius (1906) estimate was 2.1°C while Callendar (1938) was 2.0°C. If we agree that these are reasonable estimates then we have made considerable progress.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Simon
April 22, 2021 1:00 am

As usual, Simon resorts to outright, deliberate falsehood. Arrhenius said in his 1906 paper, “In aehnliche Weise berechne ich, dass eine Verminderung des Kohlensauregehalts zuer Haelfte, oder eine Zunahme desselben auf den doppelten Betrag Temperaturaenderungen von minus 1.5 Grad Celsius beziehungsweise plus 1.6 Grad Celsius entsprechen wuerde.” Not 2.1 but 1.6, which is at least close to the right ball-park, if a little on the high side.

As for Callendar, his graph of the evolution of temperature shows very clearly that ECS would be 1.5 K, not 2 K. If we agree that Simon is a pedlar of falsehoods, then we have made considerable progress.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 22, 2021 2:45 am

“Arrhenius said in his 1906 paper”

But he went on to say, in the very next paragraph
” Bei diesen Berechnungen habe ich vollkommen von derAnwesenheit des Wasserdampfes in der Atmosphäre abgesehen.”
or, in the FOS translation,
“In these calculations, I completely neglected the presence of water vapour emitted into the atmosphere”
Then he went on to calculate the effect of water vapour feedback. He concludes
“Aus dieser Angabe lässt es sich berechnen, dass die entsprechende sekundàre . Temperaturänderung bei einerSchwankung der CO, der Luft um §o Procent etwa 1.8 °C. betragen würde, so dass die totale Temperaturànderung beieiner Abnahme der Kohlensàuremenge der Luft um 50 Prozent3.9°C oder rund 4°C erreichen würde.”
or, per FOS
“For this disclosure, one could calculate that the corresponding secondary temperature change, on a 50% fluctuation of CO2 in the air, is approximately 1.8 degrees C, such that the total temperature change induced by a decrease in CO2 in the air by 50% is 3.9 degrees (rounded to 4 degrees C). “

The sensitivity is 4°C per doubling, which is the number that has been quoted ever since.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 22, 2021 11:17 am

Exactly correct, CMoB, Simon the Shill cares nothing for truth.

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
April 22, 2021 4:30 am

When are you going to reach approximate zero greenhouse gas emissions? Lead by example or STFU.

Simon
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 21, 2021 10:10 pm

Here is Gavin Schmidt’s analysis of Hansen 1988:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/06/30-years-after-hansens-testimony/ The paper has stood up remarkably well considering the uncertainty of the then-future emissions and volcanic eruptions.
Predictions are much better than fictional “pauses” which require ingenious cherry-picking and disappear as global surface temperatures continue to rise.
Hansen’s simulations start in 1984 so it is puzzling that the Monckton chart begins later than this.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Simon
April 22, 2021 9:51 am

Gavin Schmidt is a known liar and propagandist as well. So you quote from a liar and propagandist to support the propaganda of another liar and propagandist? (I know, strictly an ad hominem attack, without presenting data, Monkton quoted the data already, so I couldn’t resist the easy cheap shot.)

LdB
Reply to  Simon
April 21, 2021 6:18 pm

No the confusion is from Hansen himself and him doing a Stokism redefinition at times and it can be interpretted a number of ways. Gavin Schmidt was in fact the first to claim Scenario A was “exponential” and Scenario B was “linear” which is somewhat at odds with Hansens own words where Hansen described Scenario A as “Business as Usual” in his 1988 testimony.

So who is right and who is wrong can be argued all day because Hansen made a mess.

Simon
Reply to  LdB
April 22, 2021 12:46 am

Scenario A was nonlinear for some GHGs. An exponential function can be used to approximate nonlinear change.

Reply to  LdB
April 22, 2021 3:14 am

“Gavin Schmidt was in fact the first to claim Scenario A was “exponential” and Scenario B was “linear” which is somewhat at odds with Hansens own words”

No, Hansen was the first to say it, in his 1988 paper:
comment image

Lrp
Reply to  Simon
April 22, 2021 2:30 am

They’re both garbage.

M Courtney
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 1:39 am

Out of date posturing; how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

We have now had a real-life trial. 2020 had a global lockdown. And the Maaua Loa CO2 concentration did not recognise it.
We now know that scenarios A, B and C were all fundamentally mistaken because emissions do not have any discernible effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration.

The basic premises that:
A) CO2 emissions make a significant difference to atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Or:
B) Changes to CO2 emissions make a significant difference to atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Are both now proven to be wrong.

We are arguing about how much phlogiston is captured by a dead horse.

Reply to  M Courtney
April 21, 2021 2:26 am

“We now know that scenarios A, B and C were all fundamentally mistaken because emissions do not have any discernible effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration.”

So where do you think the 240 Gtons C that appeared in the air from 1800 to 2012 came from? And where did the 380 Gtons that we put into the air over the same period go to?

The lockdown story is a furphy. Globally the reduction in emissions was slight, and I have seen no careful analysis of the Mauna Loa results that would detect such a differential.

M Courtney
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 3:36 am

Quite probably they came from anthropogenic emissions and the natural outflow from the oceans 800 years after the MWP.

You agree with me that the effect of emissions is so small that the Mauna Loa results may not detect such a differential as a 5% drop in global GDP, focused on aviation and mass travel.

So how on earth can you not follow your own logic that the cumulative effect of insignificant emissions cannot demonstrate any difference between Hansen’s scenarios?

The reality which we now know is:
Scenario A – Too small a difference in anthropogenic emission rate to notice relative to the background rise in CO2.
Scenario B – Too small a difference in anthropogenic emission rate to notice relative to the background rise in CO2.
Scenario C – Too small a difference in anthropogenic emission rate to notice relative to the background rise in CO2.

It’s over. The facts are in. We no longer need your hypothesis. We have observations.
Better luck in your next job.

tonyb
Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 3:37 am

“Globally the reduction in emissions was slight”

Globally the reduction in man made emissions was slight (around 11 to 17%) but as they are a small fraction of that emanating from Nature it is difficult to discern.

I know you are eager to reduce your lifestyle by 11% a year cumulatively so man made emissions will stop rising.in the 2030’s

Which lifestyle choices will you start with? Your Car? Meat and Cheese eating? Flying? Heating?

So many ways to propel ourselves back to the 17th century pre industrial lifestyle

tonyb

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  tonyb
April 21, 2021 7:36 am

Nick and Simon are in a big rush to donate 60-70% of their paychecks to the Green Raw Deal.

Reply to  tonyb
April 21, 2021 12:13 pm

Tony,
“Globally the reduction in man made emissions was slight (around 11 to 17%)”
I have seen those figures quoted for the US, but not globally.

Phil.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 22, 2021 7:30 am

The IEA says that CO2 emissions fell by 5.8% during 2020.
https://www.iea.org/articles/global-energy-review-co2-emissions-in-2020

2hotel9
Reply to  Phil.
April 22, 2021 9:10 am

US emissions are down due to increased natural gas use, something the Xiden Admin is trying to bring to a halt. This will force people to use more coal, burn wood and in general drive up US emissions. Good job, greentards! More Co2 is good for the planet and good for America.

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 3:58 am

You are a FAILURE, Nick,.

STOP FLOGGING THE DEAD HORSE

(Snipped the unnecessary personal attack) SUNMOD

Last edited 3 months ago by Sunsettommy
commieBob
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 6:32 am

The extra CO2 in the atmosphere is probably due to the oceans. link According to this paper, a 0.1C increase in the temperature of the deep ocean would change its CO2 solubility to explain the modern increase in atmospheric CO2.

Compared with the amount of CO2 in the oceans, the human contribution to the total planetary CO2 budget is less than a rounding error.

Reply to  commieBob
April 21, 2021 12:12 pm

“According to this paper, a 0.1C increase in the temperature of the deep ocean would change its CO2 solubility to explain the modern increase in atmospheric CO2.”
The paper doesn’t say that at all. But in any case, it deals only with the solubility of CO2 in pure water at high partial pressure. The abstract begins
“Experimental measurements of the solubility of CO2 in pure water at pressures above 1MPa have been assembled from 25 literature studies and tested for their accuracy against simple thermodynamic criteria.”

In fact in sea water the CO2 is held mainly as bicarbonate, and the partial pressure is a thousand times less.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 12:31 pm

So what is your solution to the “Climate EMERGENCY!!!!” ?

commieBob
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 2:00 pm

Yes but because of that the solubility is exquisitely sensitive to temperature.

Reply to  commieBob
April 21, 2021 4:39 pm

We know how sensitive the real sea is (not pure water). During the glaciation, the temperature dropped about 5°C, and CO2 dropped about 100 ppm. But recently CO2 has risen about 140 ppm. There has been no 7°C warming to explain that.

commieBob
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 5:19 pm

Really? What was the deep ocean temperature? It sure wasn’t five degrees colder. The bulk of the oceans’ waters probably didn’t change temperature very much if at all.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 7:03 am

NOAA temperature data is being fraudulently altered …

Pariah Dog
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 7:17 am

“So where do you think the 240 Gtons C that appeared in the air from 1800 to 2012 came from? And where did the 380 Gtons that we put into the air over the same period go to?”

You do realise CO2 is plant food, right?
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/

You can’t be seriously suggesting that all emitted CO2 is just hanging around the atmosphere waiting to make friends with some IR-wavelength photons..?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Pariah Dog
April 21, 2021 2:10 pm

They truly believe that anthropogenic CO2 doesn’t act according to the laws of physics. It has a life of its own because it and only it is “pollution”.

JamesD
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 12:48 pm

And yet temperature did not respond as predicted.

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 1:41 am

“The usual nonsense,”

.
Yep , that is ALL YOU HAVE nick.

Your far-left agenda is being brought into the light of day.. So sad.

You KNOW that GISS is a malformed and CORRUPTED NON-DATA set based on manic “adjustments” and bears basically ZERO resemblance to reality

But that is why you use it, isn’t it

YOU HAVE TO TELL A LIE to keep the leftist scam alive.

Reply to  fred250
April 21, 2021 2:12 am

“You KNOW that GISS is a malformed and CORRUPTED NON-DATA set based on manic “adjustments””

On the contrary, I do my own calculations every month, and post them before GISS (eg here, comparison here). I use unadjusted station data from GHCN V4. I use my own method, but every month it gives very similar results to GISS.

You should try calculating something, instead of incoherent screaming.

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 3:59 am

DENIAL is all you have left.

Yep we KNOW you know how to CORRUPT the data,.

commieBob
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 7:07 am

You should try calculating something, instead of incoherent screaming.

That’s actually good advice. It has been suggested that statistics is the most important math subject for students to learn. In that light, I suggest “How to Lie With Statistics”. Folks can probably get it at the library.

A little elementary statistics knowledge can really hone one’s skeptical chops. Here’s an example about green jelly beans.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 8:43 am

All this averaging averages is meaningless, it don’t reveal anything about “climate”.

Rah
Reply to  fred250
April 23, 2021 7:11 am

Yep! Their weather models have failed miserably to forecast major cold fronts penetrating far south into the US even two weeks out! And yet here we have the usual trolls trying to convince us that their climate models are very accurate in their decades old projections. Too funny!

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 1:58 am

March 2021 was COLDER than March 1983 1nd March 1988.

Whole year , 2019 and 2020 were both COOLER than 1998,

…as was every other year except the Big BloB/El Nino year of 2016…

…..and 2008 was cooler that 34 other months out of the last 43 years.

Any data set that shows anything else is a DELIBERATELY FABRICATED LIE !

Reply to  fred250
April 21, 2021 2:40 am

According to actual data
Month.. TEMPLS GISS
Mar 83 0.07 0.19
Mar 98 0.31 0.43
Mar 21 0.77 0.94
TEMPLS (my program) uses unadjusted GHCN V4 and the base period is 1961-90. The GISS land/ocean data is base 1951-80.
 

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 4:03 am

GISS is NOT DATA Land based data is meaningless because of the MANIC ADJUSTMENTS and MASSIVE URBAN EFFECTS that smeared over HUGE areas where it doesn’t belong.

YOU KNOW THAT.. so stop pretending.

it is MALADJUSTED. from SPARSE HEAVILY URBAN AFFECTED erractic surface

We don’t give a stuff what your program says. It is MEANINGLESS.

You are a KNOWN AGW cultist, who has been caught MANY times fabricating and twisting data to suit your “beliefs”.

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 5:01 am

ROFLMAO….moyhu again, you have to be joking…!.

That guy is a rabid AGW cultist who consistently LIES and DISTORTS real data.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 2:24 am

It’s a curious mindset reminiscent of the relief expressed when the ‘pause-busting’ temperature adjustments were announced viz. any suggestions that supposed human-caused global warming may not be as catastrophic as predicted are unwelcome and treated with hostility.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
April 21, 2021 3:04 am

There is no argument here about whether the warming is catastrophic. The argument is just about whether the warming that was predicted happened. And it did.

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 4:03 am

NO IT DIDN’T..

The data fabrications you refer to ARE NOT REAL. !!

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 5:09 am

A distinction without a difference.

mkelly
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 5:49 am

No Nick the argument is is still what is the underlying cause of the warming. You are going with CO2. I am going with natural.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  mkelly
April 22, 2021 4:16 pm

I’m going with natural, too.

It looks to me like we have been in the same climate pattern since the Little Ice Age ended where the climate warms for a few decades and then cools for a few decades and then repeats, staying within limits both high and low, and CO2 levels don’t seem to influence the direction of the trend with temperatures cooling while CO2 increases, such as during the period from 1940 to 1980.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 2:25 am

What would your graph look like if you plotted UAH rather than the corrupted and debased GISS and HadCRUT series?

Reply to  Graemethecat
April 21, 2021 3:12 am

“What would your graph look like if you plotted UAH rather than the corrupted and debased GISS and HadCRUT series?”
Well, Hansen was predicting surface temperature, not TLT. But if you go to the source, you can try those options. This plot shows both UAH V6 and RSS V4.
comment image

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 4:05 am

Thanks for showing EVERYONE that UAH tracks the Hansen C Scenario closely except for El Nino events.

Why are you DISHONESTLY cutting off the data just after the 2016 El Nino/Big Blob peak , Nick ?

Temperatures are now back down to 2015 El Nino levels

More data misrepresentation ? !

And yes, we KNOW that RSSv4$ is also a corrupted version . being deliberately manipulated with “climate models”

The pressure got too much for him, poor fellow.

UAH has been PROVEN to have very close to the same trend as the ONLY pristine surface data set.

You LOSE again, Nick.

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
fred250
Reply to  fred250
April 21, 2021 4:58 am

correction….

Temperatures are now back down to PRE-2015 El Nino levels

(And will probably continue to drop.)

Did I mention that March this year was COLDER than March 1983, and March1988

Tom Abbott
Reply to  fred250
April 22, 2021 4:20 pm

“The pressure got too much for him, poor fellow.”

Everybody saw that one coming.

Peer pressure is a powerful inducement to the weakminded. It’s so much easier to conform than to go against the grain of peer pressure.

Last edited 3 months ago by Tom Abbott
Graemethecat
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 5:38 am

Many thanks, you really shot yourself in the foot there!

As Fred250 says, include the latest UAH data and the fit between Hansen’s predictions and temperatures would be even worse.

Reply to  Graemethecat
April 21, 2021 11:41 am

As Fred250 says, include the latest UAH data and the fit between Hansen’s predictions and temperatures would be even worse.”
Wearily, again, Hansen was predicting the temperature of the surface, not the lower troposphere. We know they behaved differently. Hansen predicted the temperature of the surface, and got it right.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 12:46 pm

So, according to you, there’s no relationship between tropospheric and surface temperatures? Wow.

As Fred250 has pointed out innumerable times, the surface temperatures have been debased and corrupted to maintain the CAGW narrative.

Simon
Reply to  Graemethecat
April 22, 2021 3:23 am

Try reading Nick’s reply again. They behave differently, e.g. tropospheric temperature is much more sensitive to ENSO than surface temperature.

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
April 22, 2021 4:46 am

OK, since you clearly don’t have a clue about reality I’ll ‘splain it to you one more time. The Earth’s climate changes, constantly, always has and always will. Humans are not causing it and can not stop it. I realize you aren’t intelligent enough to understand these facts, I just put them out there so you can’t claim you were never told the facts.

Simon
Reply to  2hotel9
April 22, 2021 2:46 pm

The peer-reviewed scientific literature clearly shows that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of the observed warming.

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
April 23, 2021 5:12 am

Just keep repeating lies, it is all you got.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
April 22, 2021 4:43 pm

So you say.

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 1:23 pm

UAH matches the ONLY pristine surface data for trend

GISS is NOT surface data, it is a concocted load of tripe heavily affected by urban warming and adjustments smeared over vast areas where it doesn’t belong.

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
April 22, 2021 4:58 am

What do you regard as the only pristine surface data?

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 2:39 pm

Mr Stokes absurdly tries to suggest that Hansen predicted surface temperature correctly. But he didn’t. Even on Mr Stokes’ doctored graph, it is abundantly clear that nothing like his business-as-usual scenario occurred, even though emissions continue to exceed the business-as-usual prediction in IPCC 1990.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 21, 2021 3:52 pm

“even though emissions continue to exceed the business-as-usual prediction in IPCC 1990”
There you go again! Patching together a scenario from FAR with a prediction from Hansen. Whatever works. Why not look at Hansen‘s scenario? The one that he actually used to make the prediction. Which, incidentally, does not evoke emissions in GtC at all. 

“it is abundantly clear that nothing like his business-as-usual scenario occurred”
Indeed, the scenario A did not occur. The scenario was one of forcings. Choices that we might have made in the years after 1988, which Hansen was explicitly not predicting. To see if a scenario did occur, you have to look at whether the specified gas concentrations were attained. There is no attempt to do that here. Steve McIntyre did all that years ago.

2hotel9
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 6:40 pm

No, he got it, and continues to get it, wrong.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 22, 2021 4:38 pm

“Wearily, again, Hansen was predicting the temperature of the surface, not the lower troposphere.”

Here’s Nick trying to discredit the UAH satellite data, claiming it doesn’t represent surface temperatures.

But the UAH website says it measures temperatures from the ground (that would be surface temperatures, Nick) to the upper atmosphere, and as confirmation of the accuracy of the satellite data, its data was compared to the weather balloon data, which also measures temperatures from the ground to the upper atmosphere and they correlate quite well, something like 97 percent correlation (that’s the actual number if memory serves).

I guess that means the balloon data does not correlate with the bastardized, computer-generated Hockey Stick charts that Nick uses, since they don’t correlate with the UAH satellite data.

Nick, how do you explain the discrepancy for 1998 between the UAH satellite chart and your bastardized Hockey Stick charts?

The Hockey Stick charts have cooled 1998 about 0.4C below the value that is shown in the UAH satellite chart. UAH has 1998 tied with 2016 for hottest year since the Early Twentieth century, but your Hockey Sticks show 1998 as 0.4C cooler than 2016.

Did your personal calculations also reduced 1998 by 0.4C? If so, could you explain the reason for doing so?

I’m not going to blame this on Nick, but the Climategate Charlatans and their Spawn definitely cooled 1998, just so they would be able to claim that years after the year 2000 were the “hottest year evah!”. I believe NASA Climate and NOAA declared something like 12 years after the year 2000 as “hottest year evah!” trying to create a crisis atsmophere over CO2 levels.

But the UAH satellite chart puts the lie to the claims of NASA Climate and NOAA that all those years were the hottest ever. Going by the UAH satellite data, none of those years, other than 2016 were the “hottest year evah!” and 2016 is statistically tied with 1998 for the hottest year.

The Hockey Stick charts are pure scientific propaganda dressed up in nice clothes.

The UAH satellite chart:

comment image

Last edited 3 months ago by Tom Abbott
Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 9:33 am

Why does UAH and RSS stop at 2017?
Both are well back below even Scenario C as of March 2021.
What seems clear to me is the only that has saved the climate scam at this point was the 2016 spike due to a big El Nino that is now bleeding off under steady La Nina, and another La Nina to likely follow this coming winter.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
April 21, 2021 11:44 am

“Why does UAH and RSS stop at 2017?”
Because the relevant post was made in 2018. I updated the surface data to2020, which is what Hansen was predicting. There is no reason for me to spend time updating a region that is doing something else.

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 1:23 pm

yep Hide the data you don’t like

Good little AGW stall-wart.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 2:37 pm

Why has Mr Stokes not shown the actual temperature measurements all the way to 2019?

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 21, 2021 3:53 pm

I linked the source, which is a 2018 post.

Dave Yaussy
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 6:12 am

I think Nick is making a good point here. And Steve McIntyre is above reproach; if Nick is accurately reporting his analysis, it’s something we should pay attention to.

We win as skeptics when we earn people’s trust and get our facts right. Willis is right – the internet, and this blog in particular, are good ways to have ones’ theories quickly tested and refined. Hansen has said enough dumb things without having to exaggerate or misrepresent what he did.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
April 21, 2021 2:42 pm

In response to Mr Yaussy, Steve McIntyre was more interested in climate sensitivity than in whether Hansen’s business-as-usual scenario was above observation. The simple fact is that it does not matter whether Hansen succeeded in over-predicting business-as-usual warming by using an exaggerated climate sensitivity (which he did) or by over-predicting future emissions (which he also did). The result of whatever he did was a prediction that is two or three times the real-world, observed warming rate.

Richard
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 7:21 am

Gawd this feels like such tired nonsense . Thousands of cold records have now been broken in the last six months on the ongoing freezing weather . One day of a hot record next to an airport or air conditioner or running bus is posted worldwide as proof of climate change. Surely people are waking up to this fraud now.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Richard
April 21, 2021 10:11 pm

Yet March 2021 was inside the top 10 warmest March global temperatures on record.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 22, 2021 1:15 am

One should not extrapolate from a single month’s data.

Graemethecat
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 22, 2021 3:42 am

A meaningless statement unless you give the starting date of the record. Even if it’s true, that is hardly a reason to panic.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard
April 22, 2021 5:04 pm

“Surely people are waking up to this fraud now.”

I don’t know. I heard a lot of coversation on Fox News today about Biden’s climate change plans, but not one person actually challenged the basic premise of CO2 doing all the things Alarmists claim it is doing.

All the talking heads, Fox News folks, and Republican politicians alike, hem and haw when asked about CO2 being a problem and all of them agree there is a problem here that needs fixing.

Based on not one bit of empirical scientific evidence. Millions of people are currently living in a Human-caused Climate Change False Reality, created by a bunch of liars and hangers-on. Somebody ought to ask them where they get these crazy notions about CO2. You read it in the New York Times? Well, that ought to be proof enough.

Unfortunately, the promoters and believers in Human-caused Climate Change now control the levers of power in Society, including most importantly, the Leftwing Media, and that makes this an uphill battle for skeptics. Not impossible to win, since the truth will come out eventually, but still an uphill battle in the interim.

Imo, the most effective attack on alarmists is to demand that they show you the evidence that convinced them CO2 is a problem that needs fixing. I bet 99 percent of them can’t even do that. They just heard something on the news, and now they are a believer. I think a lot of it is as simple as that, because they can’t be basing their opinion on evidence, because there is no evidence. This would be plain to see if you demanded they supply their evidence.

Alarmists reading this now are invited to show any evidence they have that CO2 is causing or will cause the Earth’s climate to change in noticeable ways.

There won’t be any replies to this challenge because the alarmists don’t have any evidence. The same result would happen if the question were posed to your local alarmist Republican: Silence, because they have no real evidence, they are just going on the say-so of someone else. That’s not the way to form good public policy.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 25, 2021 5:05 am

No alarmist to be found offering evidence of Human-caused Climate Change. As predicted. They have nothing. Isn’t it obvious?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 8:06 am

Stokes,
However, Hansen outright invented two volcanic eruptions, whose theoretical effects were not applied to Scenario A. We are comparing apples and pomegranates! Scenario C was supposed to illustrate what could be accomplished if “draconian reductions” were achieved in anthropogenic emission. But, he then slipped in a couple of hypothetical eruptions, with no fanfare. So, it wasn’t just reduction of emissions, but included an increase of aerosols. It was a case of false advertising, which we have come to expect. And, you didn’t call it to the attention of readers either. As usual, in your view, the alarmists can do no wrong.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 21, 2021 11:53 am

“However, Hansen outright invented two volcanic eruptions, whose theoretical effects were not applied to Scenario A.”

Scenario A assumed no eruptions at all, and we know that is wrong, and was never likely. B and C assumed a sequence that was similar to the past record. He placed large explosions in 1995 and 2015. Sure enough, Pinatubo came along in 1991. We have had other large eruptions since, although not quite on the scale of his postulated 2015.

Hansen was not trying to predicted year by year variations. He wanted to know how much warming would accumulate because of GHG. No-one can predict the exact volcano sequence, but Hansen used the historical data. It’s better than assuming none at all.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 9:49 pm

The approach that he should have used was to average the historical record and apply it annually to all three scenarios. The way he did it made “Business as usual” look worse, and “Draconian reductions” look better; alternatively, he could have ignored eruptions entirely because the question was really the role of anthropogenic CO2. Disingenuous at best!

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 10:30 am

ORIGINAL CAPTION: Fig. 3. Annual mean global surface air temperature computed for trace gas scenarios A, B, and C described in reference 1. [Scenario A assumes continued growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the past 20 years, i.e., about 1.5% yr^-1 emission growth; scenario B has emission rates approximately fixed at current rates; scenario C drastically reduces trace gas emissions between 1990 and 2000.] The shaded range is an estimate of global temperature during the peak of the current and previous interglacial periods, about 6,000 and 120,000 years before present, respectively. The zero point for observations is the 1951-1980 mean (reference 6); the zero point for the model is the control run mean.

What were the emission rate in 1988 and for 2021?

Last edited 3 months ago by Sunsettommy
Reply to  Sunsettommy
April 21, 2021 12:02 pm

Well, what did Hansen say it was? Although he phrases in terms of emissions, he quotes no tonnage figures as well. For good reason, because reliable data was not available prior to the UNFCCC in early ’90s. His measure of emission rates was rate of ppm increase. Here, from here, is Steve McIntyre’s plot of the numerical values used in A, B and C, with the observed up to 2008. It has tracked similarly since.
comment image

JamesD
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 12:44 pm

We are EXCEEDING CO2 levels for scenario A.I don’t care if Hansen didn’t think Scenario would happen, it happened and then some. And yet temperatures did not respond as expected.

Reply to  JamesD
April 21, 2021 2:20 pm

“We are EXCEEDING CO2 levels for scenario A”
You don’t seem to have any interest in the actual figures. Steve McIntyre links to the actual Hansen scenario numbers here (computer printout). They are annual figures. For the last complete year, 2020:
A=415.410683306270 ppm, B=408.157325820274
Observed Mauna Loa, 414.24 ppm.

In fact, A and B are very similar in CO2. The big differences are in the other gases, particularly CFCs – Scen A assumed no attempt to limit them, and even scen B assumed only partial success.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 2:19 pm

Nick Stokes has yet again failed to declare his interest as a paid disrupter of these threads. His current posting, even by his shoddy standards, is flagrantly dishonest.

For a start, his overlay of HadCRUT on to Hansen’s data differs from mine only in that it is even closer to Hansen’s scenario C (global net-zero by 2000, which did not happen) than mine, confirming my analysis a fortiori, though he fraudulently tries to suggest the opposite.

Secondly, I zeroed the HadCRUT data for 1988 to the Hansen predictions from that date because 1988 was the date of Hansen’s prediction. The HadCRUT data for that year are what they are.

Thirdly, all Stokes’ contemptible whingeing and whining about how CO2 concentrations have not risen as fast as Hansen predicted on what he himself described, in public, as his “business-as-usual” scenario merely confirm that Hansen, whether by over-predicting CO2 increases or over-predicting climate sensitivity (or, more likely, both), used a shabby device that Stokes et hoc genus omne have adopted ever since: providing a vastly exaggerated high-end case and then, when events do not pan out in accordance with the “business-as-usual” scenario, find all manner of ingenious excuses.

Fourthly, Stokes – if he had had any intention of carrying out a fair analysis – would have drawn attention to the fact that only 70% (Wu et al. 2019) of the observed period warming was anthropogenic. After all, Hansen was predicting anthropogenic warming. Therefore, the slope of the HadCRUT4 trend, adjusted to include the anthropogenic component only and thus to compare like with like, is actually below the trend shown in the head posting.

Fifthly, Stokes dishonestly suggests that my presentation of Hansen’s scenarios was inaccurate. In fact, as he knows perfectly well, it was accurate. I had enhanced and colored the three spline-curves for clarity, and there was and is nothing wrong with that.

Simon
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 22, 2021 3:49 am

Maybe you should reread the Wu paper Christopher. It says that the observed GMSAT changes from 1880 to 2017 on multi-decadal or longer timescales receive contributions of about 70% from GHGs after the GHG-related trend is removed.

Simon
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 22, 2021 12:59 am

Zeke Hausfather has also done an excellent analysis. https://mobile.twitter.com/hausfath/status/1010240656004927491?prefetchTimestamp=1619077886300
Claim that Hansen’s analysis was flawed is well and truly debunked.

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
April 22, 2021 4:41 am

Wow, the stupid just keeps pouring out of you like diarrhea.

Simon
Reply to  2hotel9
April 22, 2021 11:17 am

A rebuttal requires evidence to support your position.

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
April 23, 2021 4:58 am

No one needs to rebut your stupidity, simple, we just point and laugh.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  2hotel9
April 22, 2021 11:20 am

Simon the Shill has a rare gift.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 22, 2021 3:52 pm

“HAD 4 (red)
GISS land/ocean (orange)
GISS met stations (purple)”

None of those charts show 1998 as equivalent to 2016 in terms of warmth, therefore all those charts are bastardizations of the temperature record.

You need to use an accurate chart like the UAH satellite chart. The rest of those charts are just scientific propaganda created to sell the Human-caused Climate Change scam.

dk_
April 21, 2021 12:09 am

–Hansen is wrong, and the average global atmospheric temperature is stable.
—The alarmists have changed from global warming to climate change, which also doesn’t work with stable temps.
—They’ve since switched to ocean surface warming, with even less credibility or data, and to the multiply-disproven prophesy of more frequent, and more costly extreme weather events.
—The Texas story has little to do with net zero, just bad engineering and maintenance based on misguided sentiment, outright fraud, and crooked politics .
–The real problem with net zero is that it is an unachievable fantasy — there are no carbon neutral sources of energy available on earth. Even nuclear fission will require enormous outlays of carbon emitting materials and infrastructure to build, operate, and maintain. Life, in the only place we know it to exist, with all our technology, is based on a carbon-hydrogen-oxygen-nitrogen cycle. Doing away with oxidizing carbon is not possible, and carbon neutral/net zero is just another scary confidence trick for idiots.

Last edited 3 months ago by dk_
Joel O'Bryan
April 21, 2021 12:18 am

I’m convinced that Dr James Hansen. as head of GISS, knew in the mid-80’s he had about a 30-35 year “window of opportunity” to pull off the CO2 Global Warming scam before the next cooling phase of the global climate cycle set in. He took over GISS in the early 80’s and must’ve looked at the global tempo data held there. From the temperature records amassed at GISS it must have been obvious, from the 1930’s hot years that ended by the end of WW2 to the late 60’s-early 70’s cold years, that global climate temperatures cycled. With 1979-1980 being a cold nadir, everything from there for the next 30-40 years was certain to be upward. He knew he could sell correlation as causation with CO2 increasing from the MLO CO2 record being kept by Scripps. So in 1988 he started the con game sell with his Senate testimony, in collusion with Democrats who saw energy and human produced CO2 as an opportunity for political power.

James Hansen was first and foremost an environmental activist after being a young NASA scientist coming out of the “Age of Aquarius” activist years of the 60’s and 70’s. By the 1980’s, coal mining was the environmental enemy in the crosshairs. In addition to the acid rain scare from coal combustion exhaust, West Virgina mountain top removal coal mining was altering the landscape there, and not for the better.by any measure for those who saw the destruction in order to deliver coal to make affordable electricity. Keep in mind that estimates of US reserves of coal stretched out to beyond 150 years of available resources. Hansen set out on a activist mission, the science be damned. He would twist the science if needed, but “coal must be stopped” became his Don Quixote windmill quest.

In addition to 1980’s “coal must be stopped,” there were the ever increasing claims of “peak oil” coming soon in the next millennia, after Y2K. The peak oil claims were everywhere in the late 80’s and 90’s. The claims were that soon after 2000, maybe to 2010 at the latest, the world’s oil supply would peak and then inevitably start declining. Known oil reserves would be unable to meet global demand and thus oil prices would soar. A true energy crisis could be exploited. An economic alternative had to be found to oil and they had to make sure that solution didn’t include more coal. Renewables. The wind and solar PV scams were born, with promises to the developers of gushers of OPM to get it started. A new Rockefeller style, Standard Oil riches beyond dreams were promised to elitist investors via harvesting free energy from the sun and wind, but mostly harvesting the OPM.

Hansen thought he could see all this from his GISS perch in 1988. He was probably 90% correct, except for the peak oil and natural gas claims. And that was crucial.

A world continued awash in oil supply was no bueno for the climate scammers hoping to use post-Y2K market price incentives to replace fossil fuels and be the new Standard Oil of 21st Century energy. Even before abundant oil (via US fracking technology of tight, deep source shale oil) became apparent, the Rise of China after 2002 took everyone by surpise with its ability to commandeer energy resources, burning coal with abandon to supersize its economy in less that 15 years. Within the span of 10 years, 2002 – 2012, two BlackSwans took flight. Abundant, near limitless shale oil and natural gas drove those supplies up and thus prices down. The 2nd BlackSwan was the rise of Communist China willing and able to burn coal to power its way to economic superpower status. Those two BlackSwans had colluded to throw Hansen’s Climate Scam under the bus for the fraud on science his CO2-CAGW strong GHG theory always was.

Last edited 3 months ago by joelobryan
Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 21, 2021 6:20 am

Excellent summary! Unfortunately, the scam has moved well beyond the motives of political hacks like Al Gore and early economic rent seekers to become the main thrust for implementing global socialism.

EdB
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 21, 2021 8:27 am

Hansen consistently advoced for nuclear power. He was right all along, as we must make that transition for our EV future that we seem to want.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  EdB
April 21, 2021 10:59 am

Nuclear power, like abundant fracked natural gas, is antithetical to the renewable “green” energy scam that is harvesting OPM. And Democrats love buying campaign support with OPM, especailly when that OPM goes to liberal-leaning billionaires.

Indeed, as the Green scammers have had to admit, it has been abundant natural gas with its low prices that has been the both the death knell for US coal and the reason US CO2 emissions due to electricity generation have dropped since 2010.
Hansen could only voice weak support for nuclear power because the climate scam train depends on keeping the renewable investors onboard train (the billionaire class which includes green hedge funds managers).

Simon
April 21, 2021 12:30 am

Actual emissions and observed warming trend are closest to Hansen’s Scenario B. This is impressive given the low resolution and relative complexity of Hansen’s model.
His predictions have proved much more realistic than the claims of cooling and “pauses” made by less informed pundits.

Simon
Reply to  Simon
April 21, 2021 12:49 am

Comparison using GISS:

fred250
Reply to  Simon
April 21, 2021 1:49 am

So comparison to a FABRICATED non-data set that was DELIBERATELY corrupted to suit the AGW SCM

You are only FOOLING YOURSELF, slimon.

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
April 21, 2021 4:06 am

You never fail to entertain, about as reliable a source of “facts” as a mentally deficient monkey playing in it’s own poop.

fred250
Reply to  2hotel9
April 21, 2021 4:59 am

A very apt description of simpleton simon.

fred250
Reply to  Simon
April 21, 2021 1:47 am

GISS IS A LIE…. and those that use it, KNOW THAT.

DISHONESTY is all the AGW scam has left.



Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Simon
April 21, 2021 8:26 am

No, Hansen’s linear extrapolation of his own data most closely approximates reality, and best tracks the subjectively manipulated Scenario C.

See the last graph here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/30/analysis-of-james-hansens-1988-prediction-of-global-temperatures-for-the-last-30-years/

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Simon
April 21, 2021 2:47 pm

In response to Simon, actual emissions have exceeded IPCC’s business-as-usual prediction in 1990 ever since then, but global warming has occurred at little more than a third of the rate then predicted by IPCC. Observed anthropogenic warming (about 70% of total observed warming: Wu et al. 2019) manifestly tracks below even Hansen’s scenario C, which imagined net-zero CO2 emissions from 2000 onward, which did not happen. What is more, Stokes’ tampered graph, which Simon so admires because he mistakenly thinks it suits his point of view, shows HadCRUT tracking more closely to Hansen’s scenario C.

Pariah Dog
April 21, 2021 12:43 am

When you see “thrice” in the article title, you know exactly who the Guest Blogger is…

I do think that the optimistic note of the final sentence is misplaced. The climate change narrative is too profitable to be discarded with mere logic and science, especially when the only persons needing convincing to allow access to the taxpayer’s money are a handful of politicians looking to ‘save the planet’. That Yes Prime Minister episode on global warming was right on the money.

Charlie
April 21, 2021 12:54 am

Today, for the first time in nearly two weeks, UK installed wind capacity of 25Gw has produced more than 5Gw of daily output. Most of that time it as been producing 3Gw or less. As I write, it is producing a mighty 5.67Gw. Reliable unreliability is the future.

tonyb
Editor
Reply to  Charlie
April 21, 2021 1:09 am

I keep a weather diary here on the South Coast of England. I need to go back 2 weeks to see the word ‘Breezy.”

Mind you it has been gloriously sunny so the solar farms are producing power but unfortunately not when needed, during our exceptionally cold evenings and nights . Although of course this is merely weather, if you have cold nights and no solar or wind it does cause problems

tonyb

Newminster
Reply to  Charlie
April 21, 2021 1:50 am

6Gw as at this moment. But still only 17% of demand. Add in all the ex-gas cookers, the ex-gas central heating, the electric cars …….

David Hartley
April 21, 2021 1:33 am

Didn’t they also close all the windows and switch off the A/C in the room holding the hearing so they all sat there sweating like Pigs as they eyed the trough? Read it too long ago to remember the source.

Newminster
Reply to  David Hartley
April 21, 2021 1:53 am

No, actually they picked what was likely to be the hottest day of the year (and got it right!) and opened all the windows.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Newminster
April 21, 2021 5:33 am

And turned off the AC…. Washington, D.C. is called Foggy Bottom for a reason, it is build on filed wetlands adjacent to the Potomac River and the humidity and heat in summer is crippling. Before AC, no one stayed in the city in the summer, but scampered back to their districts to commune with the constituents…something sorely lacking today.

Last edited 3 months ago by Pamela Matlack-Klein
rah
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
April 22, 2021 12:06 am

It was actually more a malarial swamp than just wetlands when chosen to be the Capital.

Matthew Sykes
April 21, 2021 1:52 am

Of course, there is no +ve feedback from water vapour to amplify this.

Joe Ebeni
April 21, 2021 1:56 am

To rephrase a Yogi-ism. “In theory, climate computer models represent reality. In reality they do not.”  

Peta of Newark
April 21, 2021 2:04 am

Surely not.
I Can Not Believe This.

Hanston was a Climate Superstar even way back then.
He’d calculated and explained the temperatures of Venus and Mars to unnerving unerring accuracy.
Even NASA agreed with him.
What could go wrong on his Home Turf – right on his own house doorstep backyard and Hearing Room

The Human Animal cannot pass off untruths.

The simple fact that the air-con was sabotaged, by him and an accomplice ## is:
All You Need To Know about Climate Change
To disguise and hide the stress he was under, passing off untruths as he was, just like an amateur magician at a children’s’ party, he needed A Distraction.

Except the magician could probably do better. No worse that’s fo’sure
Climate Science is an out-and-out fabrication.
Junk. Snake Oil. Trash. Garbage. Nonsense.
And Hansten knew it at the time. he was flying a kite.

The only grain of truth in it (the Settled Science) is that CO2 absorbs radiation.
Yeah. OK. So what?
Every Substance In The Known Universe also does that.

The real sad and sick joke is that CO2 is such an incredibly poor absorber – and emitter.

Now then, Alert Readers will be self-deafened by Dropping Pennies….

Don’t we all hear about how ‘Substance Abc’ is a much more powerful Green House Gas (GHG) than CO2.
Stuff like Methane, Ozone, any number of CFCs, Oxides of Nitrogen.
Strange that they are all = Gases.
Scary stuff indeed.
pathetic otherwise
Because, why do good absorbers like soot, smoke, farmland dust or even the particles making up contrails, why are they not Green House Warmers
Especially soot and water droplets, insane good absorbers.
Thus also, Good Emitters
Infinitely better than CO2
Yet craziness heaped upon crazieness, the solids and liquids (droplets) are asserted to have a cooling effect.
Some completely bizarre & surreal science going on there or what

No matter ‘scary gas’ , we stand in wonderment as to how that can be.
How can anything be 10, 50, 100, 10,000 times more potent GHG than CO2?

Once you realise exactly what a piss-poor GHG CO2 actually is, those claims suddenly make sense
Almost anything could be a more potent GHG than CO2
do you laugh, cry or Get Angry

## He needed an accomplice because he was an out-and-out wimp/coward.

Don’t take it personally Hanston, it is not your fault.
You were not born as a cowardly depressed humourless personality-devoid wimp any more than anybody else was born as one.

It’s something that you ate……
Sadly and for everyone, there is now pretty well nothing else to eat than, lets call it, Substance S
Find it in most foods. It makes them taste nice and it makes you happy.
for an hour or so
No, it don’t contain Natrium. Substance G might also describe

Last edited 3 months ago by Peta of Newark
Petit_Barde
April 21, 2021 3:20 am

J. Hansen got it perfectly right !

Indeed, when the “pause” became too obvious to be neglected, he denied the measured data which according to him, “must be wrong” and he stuck since then to the models results.

We have to acknowledge that his predictions are in fool agreement with the models results.

s/

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Petit_Barde
April 22, 2021 3:06 pm

If I’m reading you right, you’re saying the model results are in full agreement with the model results? :-/

2hotel9
April 21, 2021 4:08 am

Had Hansen ever had to hold a real job producing real results he would be a homeless bum living behind a dumpster.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  2hotel9
April 21, 2021 10:43 am

Instead, through his activism he’s now a multi millionaire. In one year alone his grants, prizes, awards and other goodies (+ salary) totaled over 1.5 million.

rah
April 21, 2021 4:14 am

“Yet it is on exaggerations such as Scenario A that the global-warming scam was founded, and it is on such exaggerations that it is maintained – for now, but perhaps not for much longer.”

You know something that I don’t. Well actually you know a lot of stuff that i don’t. But what I want to know Sir is what you know that prompted that final remark of “perhaps not for much longer” because from what I am seeing the propaganda level in the push justifying the economic and societal changes they want is pegged out on the high side now.

Granted I live in central Indiana and scraped over 2″ of heavy white global warming off the hood of my pickup truck last night when I got in off the road and came home. It looks like a winter wonder land here with the heavy wet white stuff sticking to the trees and covering the ground in it’s pure blanket of white. And then of course much of Europe is having a very cold and snowy spring time so far.

But still. The occupant of the White House, I will not call him President because in my view he was not legitimately elected, is declaring Climate Change a crisis and is vowing to act and has the congress to do so! Is this just a case of it being the darkest before the light?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  rah
April 21, 2021 8:30 am

Same thing here in the Dayton (OH) area.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  rah
April 21, 2021 2:52 pm

In response to RAH, the reason for my optimism is that the people are gradually losing patience with governments that have fallen for the climate Communists’ narrative. It is only a matter of time before a judge is asked to review his government’s reliance on models that – as Hansen’s spectacularly failed prediction shows – are wholly unfit to make the attempted predictions on the basis of which the climate scam is unsoundly founded. And in court the evasions and circumlocutions and outright falsehoods perpetrated by those driving and paying for this scam – and paying some of the trolls here – will not be tolerated. There is now a realistic chance that this nonsense can be brought quite rapidly and decisively to an end.

rah
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 21, 2021 11:26 pm

Thank you for your reply.

My response was delayed because we lost power at my home. The heavy snow load followed by a good wind took down a lot of trees around here. It also took down two heavy branches off one of my willow trees.

I wish I could be as optimistic as you are. But under the current political/social circumstances in the US, that is very difficult.

I Love my country. Served it for over 12 years on hazardous duty. But I am considering moving to Uruguay for my retirement.

Abolition Man
April 21, 2021 4:22 am

Thank you, Lord Monckton!

It is good to look to Hansen as a sterling example of a climate alarmist! Not only did he sabotage the AC and open the windows for the Senate committee room, he ignored his own data from his 2008 study to continue lying about Climaggedon! At least he admitted his responsibility for the AC in the committee hearing; possibly the last honest deed of his life!

The graph from his 2008 study shows global temps falling precipitously since the Eocene Thermal Maximum; something Dr. Patrick Moore says is difficult to understand in someone professing climate alarmism! I am with Dr. Moore on that! It IS difficult to understand how a scientist or someone with half a brain could look at that Hansen graph, or the graph of 150 million years of falling CO2 levels, and still believe our current temps and levels are anything but dangerously low!

Speaking of half brains; it is good to see the Sob Sisters of the Poor team gamely trying to play on the same field as the WUWT All Stars! Nick and Simon may have cleat marks up one side and down the other, but they stick to their game plan because the head abbess assured them it is necessary for doctrinal purity! Hopefully fred250 and Joel will leave something for the second- and third-string teams to deal with, and not trample them into the playing field again!

Weekly_rise
April 21, 2021 5:12 am

Mr. Monckton, it doesn’t look as though the HadCRUT dataset is on the same baseline as Hansen’s projections, can you comment on this?

Also, I have to say, for 33 year old projections, they’re not too bad at all. Gives me confidence that modern projections are even better.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
April 21, 2021 8:33 am
Weekly_rise
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 21, 2021 9:02 am

Thanks, it’s pretty clear that observed temps tracked somewhere between Hansen’s B and C scenarios. Again, pretty good for a 30 year old model.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
April 21, 2021 9:39 am

You missed the point that the B and C scenarios only achieved their lowered slopes by selectively introducing a hypothetical aerosol load that had no basis in fact, and was not similarly applied to Scenario A. It was subjective manipulation of the models. I get the feeling that you didn’t bother to read my link.

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
April 21, 2021 1:27 pm

There’s that lack of comprehension issue that weakly has always had.. So funny !

Temps are tracking Hansens scenario C,

CO2 is only marginally below Scenarios A.

A COMPLETE FAIL !!

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
April 21, 2021 3:03 pm

No: it’s pretty clear that observed anthropogenic warming tracked below Hansen’s scenario C. And that scenario was based on the absurd assumption that there would be no net CO2 emissions globally after 2000. That did not happen: and yet anthropogenic warming since 1988 has been below Hansen’s scenario C.

And it ought to be clear to anyone with sufficient impartiality that Hansen’s scenario A was the one that he described as his “business-as-usual” scenario; that, as the head posting demonstrates, CO2 emissions have exceeded IPCC’s 1990 business-as-usual scenario; and yet that the trend of anthropogenic warming since 1988 is about a third of Hansen’s business-as-usual scenario. To all but a climate Communist, that would not be described as “pretty good”.

Reply to  Weekly_rise
April 21, 2021 12:30 pm

“Mr. Monckton, it doesn’t look as though the HadCRUT dataset is on the same baseline as Hansen’s projections, can you comment on this?”

Well, I can. Yes, he has taken advantage of a spike in HAD 4 1988 to use that as his base for matching to the models (which of course had no spike). There is no excuse for this. Hansen’s model and observed consistently used the 1951-80 average as the base. There is no reason why this could not have been done with HADCRUT 4.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 21, 2021 3:06 pm

Mr Stokes continues to be dishonest. His own presentation of the HadCRUT4 data appears to stand lower with respect to Hansen’s data than mine. It is difficult to make out what he has done, because he has used the unusually poor-quality graph from Hansen’s paper. Perhaps he had better examine the mote in his own eye.

One can understand how upset he is that his hero’s predictions have proven to be such overblown nonsense.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 21, 2021 6:27 pm

should that not be the beam in his own eye vs. the mote in thine?

Reply to  Rich Davis
April 21, 2021 7:01 pm

Mine is the mote juste

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
April 21, 2021 2:58 pm

Weekly-Rise is as usual wrong. The baseline for a set of predictions is, of course, the year in which the predictions were made. That was 1988, as shown plainly enough in the head posting. It is, of course, possible to push the observed-temperature record downward compared with mine, as Mr Stokes seems to have done, but I made a reasonable attempt to zero the 1988 HadCRUT data to Hansen’s 1988 predictions.

Furthermore, I did not adjust the trend-line of observed warming downward, as I should have done, to allow for the fact that only 70% of observed period warming was anthropogenic (Wu et al. 2019). On that basis, the HadCRUT trend is below Hansen’s Scenario C trend, which was itself based on the notion that the whole world would go to net-zero emissions by 2000, which rather obviously did not happen.

If Weekly-Rise really thinks that Hansen’s predictions were reliable, he merely advertises that he himself is parti pris and not amenable to reason.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 21, 2021 3:28 pm

“The baseline for a set of predictions is, of course, the year in which the predictions were made.”
No. Hansen was quite explicit about that. Here is his caption to the figure:
comment image

Even if you think some other number is better, if you are comparing to Hansen, you have to use the same basis.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 22, 2021 1:22 am

Mr Stokes is, as usual, wrong. The baseline for a set of predictions is, of course, the year in which the predictions are made. Predictions made before the date on which they are made are obviously not predictions but hindcasts.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 22, 2021 2:20 am

“The baseline for a set of predictions is, of course, the year in which the predictions are made.”
Well, that wasn’t 1988. The paper was submitted Jan 25th 1988. Computations would have been done over several years previously, with no awareness of the 1988 average..

Furthermore, observed global surface averages are no part of GCM computer runs or input. They report what they did; they ran as a control for 100 years without forcings, and then applied historical forcings up to 1988, thereafter scenarios. It is a climate model, and does not claim to reflect the weather of 1988.

In any case, the graph caption is quite explicit. The starting point is a historical average, not an annual value.

Last edited 3 months ago by Nick Stokes
Phil.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 22, 2021 6:49 am

Monckton is as usual wrong (dates in particular are not his strong point). The baseline for the calculations is the 1951-1980 mean as clearly stated in the paper.

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Phil.
April 22, 2021 11:17 am

He isn’t using PISS in the first place, that is why you and Nick are being silly.

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 22, 2021 11:16 am

You are being dishonest because Hansen made his presentation in 1988, therefore 1988 is his FIRST year of his model of which YOU admit was posted in …… 1988, thus that time forward is the only legitimate time frame to run on.

Monckton is using Hadcrut4 data which is more reliable than PISS which has been changed so many times now, that I ignore that garbage on principle, your continued infatuation of it is irrational, hell they still use the 1951-1980 baseline…. bwahahahahahahaha!!!!!

And lastly Monckton isn’t even disputing the zero point for the 1951-1980 base because he isn’t using that stupid baseline anyway.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
April 22, 2021 7:03 pm

“therefore 1988 is his FIRST year of his model”
The only sensible base for a prediction is information that was known at the time it was made, which does not include 1988.

But it should be a stable base, else your comparison will be different depending on the choice made. The HAD4 mean for 1988 was 0.200°C, and for 1986, which would have been the most recent known year, was 0.045°C. The use of the latter would push the “observed” up by 0.155°C, which is significant in the comparison. That is why longer averages are used.

But in any comparison, the two things compared should be on the same base. 

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 23, 2021 7:27 am

His model was a predictive one which means it has to start in 1988, the YEAR he introduced it, it isn’t hard for both the paper and data to start in 1988.

You can make any rationalizations you want, but it is a modeling prediction that can’t start before he created/published it

He says Business as usual, was it the 1958 business as usual starting point or is it 1988 business as usual for Scenario A?

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 22, 2021 3:20 pm

I guess I need to find and read that Wu (2019) paper. My “feels” are that anthropogenic warming constitutes maybe 5% of total warming. I get this from comparing the 1990s warming exhibits identical slope to the 1930s warming, when anthropogenic emissions were a fraction of what they were in the 1990s. How does Mr Wu explain that?

Roger Taguchi
April 21, 2021 5:17 am

Monckton fails to mention how accurate scenario B was: comment image

Abolition Man
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 21, 2021 5:37 am

Roger,
So good of you to show up! Now that the coroner has ruled that Officer Sicknick died from TWO strokes about two days AFTER the January 6th unarmed insurrection, perhaps you could honor him by admitting you fell for another hoax! Please apologize to his family, who begged that his death not be politicized; which is exactly what every leftist media outlet and politician did!
Climaggedon is more a scam than a hoax, but you probably fell for the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax as well as the Impeachment Hoaxes, 1 and 2! How does it feel to be duped so often? Perhaps letting others do your thinking for you is not a good life strategy!

Abolition Man
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 21, 2021 12:52 pm

Roger Rabbitbrain,
Nice attempt to change the subject, but we’re still waiting for the apology!
You should maybe ask yourself how the Mueller Coven of 27 Trump-hating lawyers could fail to find ANY collusion after two years and almost $50 million spent!
Another question would be why Konstantin Kilimnik was acknowledged as a US intel asset in 2015 for the Obama administration, then becomes a Russian agent once Trump is in office!
You really should pull your head out of that dark hole where you store it; you seem to be developing tunnel vision or myopia! If you’re relying on the corporate media for your news you are going to be wrong most of the time! Try finding some truth tellers; there are a few who are still liberal. I’d love to play longer, but you ignorance is too typical, and boring!
My apologies, Lord Monckton, for veering off topic; but I have great difficulty standing idly by while silly, ignorant alarmists try to peddle their snake oil!

mkelly
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 21, 2021 5:54 am

PLease post the graph with unadjusted Senario B.

fred250
Reply to  mkelly
April 21, 2021 1:29 pm

And some REAL temperature data.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 21, 2021 8:22 am

Roger
Is that the temperature measured or post-adjustment?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 21, 2021 8:54 am

What does “Adjusted Scenario B” mean? Your graph doesn’t look like the data I have access to. It also doen’t look like the graph Monckton supplied for this article. If it was “adjusted” post-publication, then it doesn’t represent Hansen’s original prediction and you have no basis for claiming original accuracy.

However, being right for the wrong reason is a ‘sin’ in science. There is no reasonable expectation of it having any predictive value. In the case of both Scenarios B and C, there was a subjective manipulation of the outcome by introducing two hypothetical volcanic eruptions. If he were trying to be objective, then he would have applied a correction for periodic eruptions to all three or none.

fred250
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 21, 2021 1:30 pm

Its been “adjusted” to match the “adjusted” temperatures. !!

Its what the AGW scam is all about.

Phil.
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 23, 2021 8:16 pm

Perhaps you should read the paper?
For example Section 6.2 on page 9358 discussing the effects of Stratospheric aerosols.

fred250
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 21, 2021 1:28 pm

GISS is NOT observations, nor remotely resembling reality… period. !

Tha is why AGW scammer use it..,…

it is DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY for that purpose.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 21, 2021 3:08 pm

Mr Taguchi does not say which temperature dataset he is using: it was plainly not HadCRUT4. Nor does he say what “adjustments” he has made to Hansen’s Scenario B. Nor does he explain why he has plotted scenario B against the observed record, when Hansen himself described his Scenario A as his business-as-usual scenario.

Phil.
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 22, 2021 6:41 am

Perhaps because in his ’88 paper Hansen described Scenario B as “perhaps the most plausible of the three cases” and Scenario A as “must eventually be on the high side of reality”. Your misunderstanding of the meaning of ‘business as usual’ as being the most likely scenario leads to your flawed analysis. Scenario A was designed to be a high estimate by assuming that “the growth rate of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely”, which was considered to be unlikely..

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Phil.
April 22, 2021 11:27 am

High estimate (A) low warming (C), that is WHY his model is a failure.

Phil.
Reply to  Sunsettommy
April 25, 2021 8:03 am

Actually you have it wrong, that’s why his model is a success! The aim of the paper was to project what would happen under certain future emission scenarios, high medium and low. After over 30 years those scenarios have turned out to have fulfilled their purpose and do indeed bracket the actual emission behavior. CO2 emissions have fallen between A and B and the ‘Other Trace Gases’ have followed C.

mkelly
April 21, 2021 5:39 am

Recently in the comment section Lord Monckton said that the vibration of CO2 molecules produce “heat”. Now that he has posted a value to the amount of CO2 molecules added to the atmosphere, 11.5 GtC, he can tell us how much “heat” was added. He did not say if it was heat in joules or watts. He should then be able to compare that to the claimed increase in 2018 and come up with a sensitivity value. Would that not assist in the argument about what the sensitivity value is?

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  mkelly
April 21, 2021 3:10 pm

In reply to mkelly, I am not a radiation physicist, but Professor Happer is. He has written a careful paper, after examining the 10,000 relevant spectral lines, concluding that the directly-forced warming from doubled CO2 is not much more than half of official climatology’s midrange estimate.

Bruce Cobb
April 21, 2021 5:45 am

Oh he’s Once, Twice,
Three times a shady
Global Warming pseudoscientist

Pamela Matlack-Klein
April 21, 2021 5:47 am

It really is a shame that memories are so unreliable. If people could remember what has gone before in climate/weather they would not be so quick to believe the fanciful predictions of Hansen, Gore, Mann, et al. I’ve been watching the documentary The Royal House of Windsor, on Netflix. It turns out that the winter of 1947 was brutal, snow, freezing temps, coal shortages, food shortages, the Thames freezing over, and all the miseries that go along with same. This nicely puts the lie to the current “unprecedented” snowy and cold winter. Old newsreel footage is a priceless resource to be mined. Currently in Portugal it is 14C and raining, not at all what we are used to in April, a good 10 degrees colder in fact!

David Loucks
April 21, 2021 6:08 am

All the models are based on Hansen’s faulty model from the late 70’s

Joao Martins
April 21, 2021 6:12 am

Please, listen to the science!

Hansen was right, and the measures to control “climate emergency”, etc., were also right!

Just see how well “Scenario C” fits with observed reality! We are in the right path, “Net-zero from 2000”, climate catastrophe was prevented, no need for extra measures, carbon taxes, etc.!

Case closed!

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Joao Martins
April 21, 2021 8:20 am

Sarcasm, right?

Joao Martins
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
April 22, 2021 12:12 pm

Of course!

ScienceABC123
April 21, 2021 6:18 am

“The biggest problem with computer models is getting them to match-up with reality.”

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  ScienceABC123
April 21, 2021 8:59 am

But, realclimate.com has evidence that there is great success in getting ‘reality’ to match-up with the models!

ScienceABC123
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 21, 2021 1:29 pm

Ah yes, the Adjustocene…

ResourceGuy
April 21, 2021 6:27 am

He should have been handcuffed for reckless agenda forecasting along with his Congressional promoters.

Richard M
April 21, 2021 6:29 am

All we need to do is look at the oceans to see where Hansen went wrong. They track almost exactly with the UAH data (at least for now). What this shows is our climate is driven by varying releases of energy from the world’s oceans.

https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/trend

So, why is it the world’s oceans have been warming? That is the real question. Alarmists try to claim they are sequestering energy from the atmosphere and that is why the atmosphere has not warmed as Hansen and others predicted.

The truth is the oceans have been warming for almost 4 centuries. Hence, it is not driven by CO2 emissions. The cause is very likely increases in salinity. More saline oceans have two side effects.

1) Increase in CO2 outgassing.
2) Decrease in cooling evaporation

Seems to match global observations pretty closely.

Now, humanity does not get off scot free. It turns out we have been helping to increase salinity levels the past 70 years as well as adding micro-plastic pollution which has much the same effect.

Richard
April 21, 2021 7:12 am

The covid pandemic was a part of the climate crisis as illustrated in a previous article here about the epa email. Undercover cnn report by veritas illustrated that they will be full on pushing it. This whole scam pandemic was first tried back in 2009 with swine flu- same year as the spa email. I think there are multiple reasons for the pandemic but it all leads to control of People and travel, more than they could have wished for just pushing the climate crisis. Moreover maybe a fear of populist parties on the rise across the world , a sign of people sick of the embedded politicians and led to the rise of trump. Pandemic, climate change weaves its threads thru it all controlled by those elites.

Michael Jankowski
April 21, 2021 7:28 am

As soon as I saw this thread, I knew Nick and some other ilk would be here to defend Hansen’s predictions.

The “Hansen would have gotten it right if only he’d known the future” defense is as weak as it gets.

Clyde Spencer
April 21, 2021 7:40 am

Hansen’s three scenarios, shows that observed warming was closest to Hansen’s Scenario C.

However, even Scenario C would not have been close had Hansen not arbitrarily assumed two hypothetical, significant volcanic eruptions, which of course, never took place! He had no basis in theory or history to justify two eruptions, let alone the dates that he chose. Strict modeling, without the hand of subjectivity, would have kept Scenario C on the same trajectory as A and B. It was all theatrical hand waving.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/30/analysis-of-james-hansens-1988-prediction-of-global-temperatures-for-the-last-30-years/

Olen
April 21, 2021 8:12 am

The real disgrace is a room full of US Senators sweating and not sending someone to turn on an operational air conditioner. It gives credit to the expression too stupid to come in out of the rain. And being influenced by such tactics.

Pat from Kerbob
April 21, 2021 8:17 am

Why not take a page out of the eco-loon playbook and sue to prevent massive waste of funds, installations of wind turbines etc. Sue based on science and force the scientologists from cover, force them to defend their “science” in court?

Beta Blocker
April 21, 2021 8:46 am

The graph posted by Roger Taguchi above comparing an adjusted Hansen Scenario B to observations indicates a rate of increase for the thirty year period of 1988 through 2018 of roughly + 0.18 C per decade.

HADCRUT4 indicates that the rate of increase for the thirty-five year period between 1910 and 1945 — when GHG forcing was theoretically less than it was in the period between 1988 and 2018 — to also have been roughly + 0.18 C per decade.

And so Hansen’s Scenario B was a very easy prediction to make knowing that a similar thirty year period of warming had already occurred in the 20th Century before 1988.

Tomorrow, April 22nd 2021, is Earth Day. The Biden Administration will reportedly announce its GHG reduction targets for the year 2030 and beyond. If Biden’s people go for a 50% reduction in America’s carbon emissions by 2030 over a 2005 baseline, as climate activists are now pushing hard for, then interesting times are ahead.

The only possible means of reaching 50% by 2030 is to drastically increase the price of all forms of energy and to impose strictly-enforced energy conservation measures on the American people, up to and including a carbon fuel rationing program not unlike the one which was imposed during World War II.

Reply to  Beta Blocker
April 21, 2021 12:59 pm

. . . including a carbon fuel rationing program not unlike the one which was imposed during World War II.

Shades of John Kenneth Galbraith! He ran the rationing system during WWII and loved it. If he was still alive, I’m sure he would honor us with running a similar system for carbon-based fuel.

Jim

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Jim Masterson
April 21, 2021 3:30 pm

John Kenneth Galbraith once remarked that with but one major exception, the public was generally cooperative with the government’s World War II rationing program. The major exception was gasoline. People would sell their first born child for ten gallons of gasoline.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Beta Blocker
April 22, 2021 5:26 pm

“And so Hansen’s Scenario B was a very easy prediction to make knowing that a similar thirty year period of warming had already occurred in the 20th Century before 1988.”

Yes, sir. Hansen already had the template for the future by looking at the past temperature record.

Clyde Spencer
April 21, 2021 11:02 am

Shortly after entering a number of comments in reply to Stokes, Simon, Taguchi, and weekly_rising, some troll(s?) immediately gave me a ‘thumbs down’ vote on all my comments; they even objected to me commenting on the weather here today.

All but the weather vote have since been nullified by other up-votes. However, I find it interesting that someone would give me a down-vote without even trying to counter the facts that I presented. They don’t have the wherewithal to present counter-facts, so resort to expressing their dislike of someone who presents ‘inconvenient facts.’ Way to go guys! It shows everyone what kind of stuff you are made of. It is pretty light-weight! We understand that you don’t like people who don’t agree with you. You don’t really have to go to the trouble to confirm that you are operating on an emotional level.

However, please do come back when you have some objective facts to offer.

TonyG
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 21, 2021 12:52 pm

That’s the main thing I dislike about up/down vote systems – it makes it far too easy to just downvote without engaging. You don’t have to think, just “I don’t like what was said” is sufficient.

That’s why I make it a policy to not up or down vote anything. If I can’t be bothered (for whatever reason) to write a response or rebuttal, then I don’t have enough invested to warrant a downvote either.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 21, 2021 1:02 pm

Clyde,
Getting down votes from the Sob Sisters of the Poor team is actually an asset on one’s resume!
Perhaps there are more trolls being hired as the evidence piles up against their catechism!
I believe you said you were a fan of Kurosawa; are you familiar with the Samurai Trilogy?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Abolition Man
April 21, 2021 10:04 pm

Very much a fan of the Trilogy. I have it on VHS tape, all 6(?) hours.

rah
April 21, 2021 11:33 am

Well the west side highway is still above water and the Battery tide gauge shows no increase in the pace of sea level rise. So much for Hanson’s cred.

Rich Davis
Reply to  rah
April 21, 2021 6:36 pm

Yes, but the adjusted Battery tide gauge is half-way up the Empire State Building.

Phil.