Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I see that my favorite serially failed climate doomcaster, Dr. James Hansen, is at it again. Accompanied by his usual Greek chorus of co-sycophants, he’s written a new paper entitled Global warming in the pipeline, by James E Hansen, Makiko Sato, Leon Simons, Larissa S Nazarenko, Isabelle Sangha, Pushker Kharecha, James C Zachos, Karina von Schuckmann, Norman G Loeb, Matthew B Osman, Qinjian Jin, George Tselioudis, Eunbi Jeong, Andrew Lacis, Reto Ruedy, Gary Russell, Junji Cao, and Jing Li.
The press release quotes Hansen as follows:
“We would be damned fools and bad scientists if we didn’t expect an acceleration of global warming,” Hansen said. “We are beginning to suffer the effect of our Faustian bargain. That is why the rate of global warming is accelerating.”
And of course, the press release contains the requisite global warming scare photo complete with a bleached skull in the lower right …
In the underlying paper, Hansen et al. ad infinitum warn us very seriously of a “predicted post-2010 accelerated warming rate”. And how do they know these things?
Models. Yeah, big surprise, I know.
Hmmm, sez I … so I figured I should take a look at the changes in the rate of temperature increase over the last 170 years. To do that, I started by looking at the Berkeley Earth temperature dataset. Then I thought “Well, somebody’s sure to claim I should have used the HadCRUT dataset”, so I threw that in for good measure. Here are the 50-year trailing accelerations for those two surface air temperature datasets. By “50-year trailing accelerations”, I mean the calculated acceleration (or deceleration) for the 50 years preceding a given date.
Figure 1. 50-year trailing acceleration, Berkeley Earth and HadCRUT global mean temperature datasets.
As you can see, at different times, there has been both acceleration and deceleration in the rate of temperature change over the last 170 years.
Of particular interest, and in total contradiction to James Hansen’s claim of a “predicted post-2010 accelerated warming rate”, since about 1990 or so the 50-year trailing acceleration has been decreasing. The rate of warming was actually decelerating starting, ironically, around 2010. And at present, acceleration over the final half-century of the record is approximately zero.
Go figure.
Mentions in their paper:
- OBSERVATIONS: 11
- MODELS: 148
In the midst of all of this, what’s actually going on with the temperature? Here are six different datasets.
Figure 2. CEEMD smooths, global mean temperature anomalies from six datasets. Anomalies are taken around the starting point in each smoothed dataset. Note that JMA only goes to Dec 2022, so it misses the final uptick.
There are some curiosities in Figure 2.
- All six show that temperatures have been decreasing since the peak of the 2018 El Nino event. While such decreases are not uncommon in the record (see post-1998 El Nino in Fig. 2 above), it sure ain’t acceleration.
- GISS, HadCRUT5, and Berkeley Earth are almost indistinguishable. HadCRUT5, plotted first, hardly peeks out from behind the other two.
- Over the first twenty years up to the low temperatures around the year 2000, all six datasets are in agreement. After that, RSS goes high and JMA and UAH go low. What changed?
- Finally, saying that there is some kind of “acceleration” post-2010 as Hansen et all of them claim is a scientific joke. The time period is far too short and the temperature variations are far too complex to say anything about possible acceleration.
Rain predicted tonight, wonderful rain in our dry part of the planet. My very best wishes to all, life is short, enjoy. It does no good to complain about the coming storm, so we might as well learn to dance in the rain …
w.
PS—When you comment, quote the exact words you are discussing. I can defend my words. I can’t defend your interpretation of my words. Thanks.
Does it take one to know one?
Yes it does, and Hansen, Mann, et al know every last festering one of them.
It’s always in the pipeline: not yet arrived yet, but is expected to arrive in the future. Some day.
No different to astrology, you will meet a tall dark stranger….
And it’s patent bolleaux
Just to say I never miss your contributions no matter how tired and discouraged I may be, with everything
Thank You, Willis
¡Y a ti tambien, mi’jita!
w.
Who do you think made the following claims?
“[In New York City by 2008] The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”
“I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change…no longer than a decade, at the most.” – September 14, 2006
“…we will be able to understand climate change well only with the help of global climate models that are able to incorporate all of these mechanisms, when all of these forcing factors can be measured accurately.”
How do you suppose that is all working out?
Homer?
Homer had no time for complete iliads like Hansen et al.
OK then, Nostradamus?
Could be.
I hear his Quatrains are incorporated into the IPCC’s “Summary For Policymakers”
Nostra-dumbass !
What – Simpson?
Homer Simpson ~ James Hansen.
There IS a definite resemblance. If anyone sees him at a conference, or something, get a video of him saying ‘Marge!’ in a vaguely simpsons-esque way!
As you were. There’s been another software update-
Climate change news: Earth has just five years left to avoid 1.5 degrees of warming, new study claims (9news.com.au)
The first one is a misquote, it referred to 2028 assuming a doubling of CO2. In any case the ‘West Side Highway’ referred to no longer exists. The present one does get flooded though: 121030073448-sandy-flooding-west-side-highway-c1-main.jpg
How many more people will take the path of Wynn Bruce before the foaming at the mouth envirowackos like Hansen, Gore, Mann, et al ad infinitum will finally be held complicit in their deaths. Trump is held responsible for his rhetoric. Why not these clowns?
Anyone who has a chance of upsetting the apple cart will be attacked with whatever it takes. Those who grease the skids will never be spoken of poorly in public.
Hansen’s long track record of alarming (but very wrong) climate predictions remains unbroken.
In 1990, he predicted Manhatten’s West Side Parkway would be under water from accelerating sea level rise by 2010. It is still high and dry.
But it got him a headline.
And that’s all that matters in public discourse these days.
🙁
No he didn’t, that’s a misquote. He did describe it being flooded during a storm in ~2028 which does happen fairly regularly, as recently as Sept 29th.
Even the first derivative (trend) of a noisy data set is difficult. The second derivative (acceleration) requires a witchcraft. The golden rule is: Interpolate at will. Extrapolate at your own peril.
It might be more useful to fit a smooth curve to the noisy data set and then do the derivatives on the smooth curve.
I sort of almost understand that- I hope someone here will do it. I’d like to see it.
“Interpolate at will”
And nobody knows what that means. Back in high school (many decades ago) we had to interpolate trig and log tables. Nowadays, people just press a button on their calculator.
You still have calculators? I think most people have an app for that these days.
I highly recommend this RPN beauty:
https://thomasokken.com/free42/
It is an app of the HP42S, and it works in the standard portrait mode as well as a replication of the earlier landscape mode calculators from the 80’s. It has a 4 number stack and programmable labels for variables. It looks more original on Android but the iPhone version is close.
There is also an HP48 version for those who know how to program it. It has an unlimited stack. I miss that. It died in a puddle in Yogyakarta.
I use the 42S on a daily basis because it is so convenient. Thank you Thomas.
I have an actual HP48G in my desk. Ruined me for using any other calculator. Never have downloaded the app though. Maybe I should.
I still use my HP41 programmable, with card reader.
Off-topic/Story tip: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/05/countries-agree-key-measures-to-fund-most-vulnerable-to-climate-breakdown
LOL! – Loss and Damage agreed to… Kind of
‘Developed countries also agreed language that implied they should be the key donors to the fund, as they would be “urged” to contribute while others would be “encouraged” to do so.’
OOooh! It was agreed after ‘tense negotiations’ that rich countries will be ‘urged’ to contribute while other countries will only be ‘encouraged’ to pay.
I’m very excited to see how the ‘loss and damage’ thing plays out. Should be great comedy. It would require countries to truly put their money where their mouths are – especially the BRICs, since they are leading the CO2-emission charge now.
“are you talkin’ to me?”
Who are these “rich” countries?
The USA is massively in debt, and keeps having to print money just to look after itself….
… so could hardly be called “rich”
I think it is the rich COMPANIES such as Blackrock et al that should be footing all these billions.
Afterall, they got most of their money because of fossil fuels use in Western Society.
typo second line….. and
cankeepsFixed … I hate typos. My motto is “Perfect is good enough.”
w.
They’ve been forecasting global warming for something like forty years now. Yet except for very minor natural variations there is still no real evidence of it. On the morning of November 1st in Chicago I woke up to snow on the ground. That is the earliest I remember ever seeing snow. I know Chicago is not the world. But still instead of it getting warmer here year by year like they forecast, it snowed on November 1st.
“Their wise men will be foolish.” Out of context, but I believe that is from the Book of Isiah and from the Book of Romans. I’m not a religious man but it sure fits our modern times. Our scientists believe in comic book fantasies like nine extra dimensions, invisible matter that no one can see or measure, infinite multi-verses where anything not explicitly forbidden by physics (including Donald Duck) must exist. Our politicians believe you can power steel blast furnaces and New York City with a windmill. Our university professors don’t know the difference between a man and a woman. Our artists think a canvas painted all black is great museum art. Our newspaper people are naive. Our president is crooked and senile. Where is the common sense?
Yes, the deterioration in public standards of rationality is palpable.
I’m reminded of correspondence I recently had from a respected long-form journalist.
A couple of excerpts, where he states what should be patently obvious to anyone with a pulse –
There’s a problem with the modern media cycle (and social media cycle) which is incentivising politicians to act like political celebrities, or influencers, so to speak. To seek attention rather than focus on policy.
I think it’s a syndrome that’s increasingly common among politicians on all sides. They SHOULD be public servants. They SHOULD be focused on making life better for their constituents. Instead they’re focused on their publicity. And that feels different from politics a few decades ago, when the news cycle was slower.
I want reasonable, practical government, not ideological government.
But not a blank canvas – that’s, apparently, a step too far and they’ll want their money back at that point.
“Our scientists believe in…”. But, do they believe in those things- or are they mostly just theorizing while seeking evidence and proof? They might be right or wrong- only way to find out is to keep working hard on them as real science should- unlike like climate astrology. I do agree with your assessment of politicians and professors and some artists. Newspaper people, right on, they never impress me.
Since when was belief part of the scientific method?
Yes, Chicago is not the world, despite having a connection to it by having been born there. However, for what it is worth, I now live in Ohio near Wright-Patterson AFB (I can hear the overly amplified reveille at 7:30 in the morning inside my house when the atmosphere is right.). In the nearly 20 years I have lived here, I’ve become accustomed to the first snow of the season around Thanksgiving. This is the first year I can remember having snow on Halloween, despite having experienced stronger and weaker El Niños during that time. Time will tell if it is just a fluke, or a harbinger of things to come.
“Common Sense” is what all of our ancestors were lacking, and, thus, common sense is what the current crop of elected grifters is proposing for new prior restraint style gun control laws. What with the discovery and application of common sense to our laws, surely the Second Coming can’t be far off.
I hope you’ve visited the Air Force Museum there at Wright-Patterson AFB. Great museum, and it’s huge. My wife particularly likes the B-2 Stealth Bomber.
As I was scrolling thru the report, I kept thinking it would look great on a couple rolls of toilet paper.
The US Climate Reference Network that only uses rural area stations is flat from 2005 to the present.
20 coauthors so much wisdom Does DR Jim want a #MeToo following
G’Day alastair
“20 coauthors”
Willis E. has stated a number of times that the quality of a ‘study’ is inversely proportional to the number of co-authors.
Love the image at the top!
Perhaps they told the artistic AI to make a predictive image of COP28 ! 🙂
170 years? Doesn’t look like that on the chart. More like 125.
They are “50-year trailing accelerations”, so there isn’t one for the first 50 years in the period covered.
James Hansen freaked out about the heatwave and drought hitting his home state in 1988 and testified to Congress, saying, this is what to expect from global warming. Five years later, under an exactly opposite pattern, in 1993 his home state was under water. Guess what he said caused it. So, Dr. Hansen, what -isn’t- climate change?
Tim Wirth chose the hearing date to fall on the usual hottest day of the year. The night before, they went into the room, opened some windows and tampered with the AC.
And so it began with deceptions and it continues.
What isn’t climate change?
Ingrowing toenails at present, but send me money and I’ll prove it does.
story tip
Just watched Senator John Kennedy grill some climate experts. Ya gotta watch it. I just love Kennedy.
‘Y’all Want To Talk About The Problem But You Never Want To Answer’: Kennedy Gets Testy With Witness
Eh? Why don’t these idiot scientists have a cost for renewables?
As a layman, I have a figure for the UK – because I have calculated one in my recent letter to Parliament. My figure, to make 80% of TOTAL UK energy renewable with wind power, was £4,000 billion.
What they always forget, is storage. At present all UK energy backup is by gas (methane), but if that must go by 2035, then we need 20,000 gwh of stored energy. The recent Royal Society report said we need 100,000 gwh of storage. But even my smaller energy storage estimate would cost £1,000 billion. (Pumped water storage.)
The Royal Society report said that hydrogen storage would be much cheaper. But hydrogen ‘battery’ storage loses 70% of the input energy. So you need even more wind generation, to charge up the highly inefficient hydrogen battery. And then you are back to the same costs.
I would imagine that America’s energy requirements are at least 8x UK requirements, so the best guess for America going renewable would be something like £32,000 billion or $40,000 billion.
Which is a far-cry from that absurd $200 billion estimate. Hek, if it only took $200 billion, then Biden’s $1,400 billion so-called ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ would have already paid for the complete transition to renewables….!!
These so-called ‘scientists’ have no idea what they are talking about.
Ralph
I think they do know and won’t say because it would destroy their cult.
Q: “You’re gonna de-carbonize America’s economy by 2050. How ya gonna do that, and how much will it cost?”
A: From 4 different ‘expert’ witnesses –
“blather, blather, blather . . .”
Hitler, Stalin & Pol Pot each had their own models – but they all looked like a graveyard in the end. Somehow these socialist paradises always end up with The Killing Fields in one form or another. Some of the warmists actively promote mass death – with others, it just an unexpected side-effect.
“If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”― W.C. Fields
I love Senator John Kennedy because he won’t let them do that.
He doesn’t get dazzled or baffled.
To the @ssh@t that said 200 billion the first year, the green new deal provisions in the so called Inflation Reduction Act had 800 Billion of green subsidies and tax breaks.
I am sorry the good Senator didn’t bring that up.
The doomsters have become a parody of themselves.
Yep. That is the problem to them, affirmationists. There is acceleration in the models, but not in observations. The result is a widening gap between both.
The top graph is HadCRUT5 in black with Gaussian smoothing and CMIP6 model ensemble in red, dashed.
The bottom graph is the 15-year trailing rate of change of the top graph expressed in ºC/decade. Notice the acceleration in the models, while observations have been flat with a slight deceleration at the end.
Figure from my new book:
Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role
Just wait until de Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation goes belly up over the next few years. I expect that around 2025, but could be earlier. Global temperatures could go down 0.2-0.3 ºC at least.
The next “year without a summer” is unlikely to be a good thing.
Yes and it happen far to often. But far enough apart the people forget. I had a very smart mother and I was in early grade school and ask mother why the summer had not warmed up yet her answer was some don’t her childhood was spent in the dirty 30s and yet she knew that. Can’t say that about todays educated idiots.
And remember, a LOT of that “surface” warming after about 1970 is because of urban expansion.
And also remember that the temperatures around the 1940s have been flattened significantly.
Most near urban sites will now have been “consumed” by urban expansion, so the UHI effect will probably slow down a bit as urban densification takes over.
0.2-0.3 ºC? That’s easily handled with a few simple adjustments in the data?
w – Nice analysis. Please can you state explicitly how the acceleration was calculated, so that I can quote it with the chart (Figure 1) in discussions with others.
Mike, I’ve done a linear regression of temperature as a function of time t plus (time squared)/2.
T = f(t + (t^2)/2)
The result of the linear regression are terms in the form of m times x + b for the t and the (t^2)/2 variables. The acceleration is the “m” term of the (t^2)/2 variable.
w.
Thx.
Apologies for my other comment, I just noticed your explanation here.
But I still don’t grasp it completely: why do you choose a function of t+0.5t^2? And how is that a linear regression of temperature? (it looks like a power function to me). And why does that b-term (the intercept of the linear regression) denote the acceleration?
I did a quick normal linear regressions (fitting T = mx+b) over the preceding 50 years (on Berkeley earth data). The values for ‘m’ denote then the change in temperature (the average change in temperature per year over that preceding 50 years). If values for ‘m’ go up, that should denote an acceleration, if values go down a deceleration. If I plot that the m-values (change in C/yr) seem to go up since the 1980s.
My bad, I meant the “m” term, not the “b” term. Fixed.
Next, it’s a linear regression of two lists of numbers. In this case, it’s time and time squared. But that doesn’t make the regression other than linear. The origin of the numbers doesn’t matter.
Regards,
w.
Thanks Willis, m-term makes more sense than intercept yes.
So if I’m correct you are using multiple linear regression with two x-variables: t and t^2/2. This would result in the following function:
T = n*t+a + m*(t^2/2)+b
[a and b are intercepts and n and m are coefficients denoting the slopes; I kept ‘m’ in line with previous posts as the slope of the time squared]
Is this correct? If so, what is the rationale to fit this formula, and why can m be interpreted as acceleration? Mathematically both n and m are coefficients affecting the change in T (where acceleration would be the change of the change; i.e. second derivative).
The t^2 term is used because it experiences steady acceleration. For example, here’s an R computer statement.
> diff( (1:10)^2)
3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
That calculates the differences step-by-step between the numbers 1 to 10 squared.
As you can see, there is a steady increase in the difference from one point to the next. This is acceleration.
The term (t^2) / 2 is used because the derivative of (t^2) / 2 is t itself.
Note that this is not the only possible kind of acceleration. It’s the simplest kind, a steady increase (or decrease) in the rate in question.
But we could also have a non-steady increase in the rate, it might increase over time or decrease over time. But that’s rarely calculated.
w.
Hi, Willis —
Apologies. I don’t get what you are plotting in Figure 1.
From your description, you appear to be running a linear regression of the form:
T(t) = a + b*t + c*(t^2)/2 + error
I can’t tell from your explanation whether T(t) is the value of the temperature anomaly in year t or the fifty year difference in temperature anomalies at year t.
Running the regression for HC5, I get
T(t) = 216 – 0.2294*t + 0.000121*(t^2)/2 (R^2 = 0.83),
when T(t) is the temperature anomaly in year t, and
T(t) = -100 + 0.096*t – 0.0000468*(t^2)/2 (R^2 = 0.47),
when T(t) is the fifty year difference in temperature anomaly. I don’t have a problem with running either of these regressions.
But what are you plotting in Figure 1? It is not the predicted values because that would simply trace out a quadratic in time, and it is not the derivative, dT(t)/dt = b + c t, because that would simply be linearly varying in time, and it is not d^2T(t)/dt^2 = c, which would be constant. So what is it?
Regards, JB
I think I’m starting to see what is calculated. Willis fits your formula (a quadratic function) through the previous 50 years. The acceleration (over that previous 50 years; say 1851-1900) is then the second derivative of this fitted function:
T(t) = a + b*t + c*(t^2)/2 + error
T'(t) = b +ct [first]
T”(t) = c [second]
So the value of c denotes the acceleration over that past 50 years (we called it m in previous posts).
He then plots the value of c at that point in time (so 1900). This is repeated in each next year to derive the curve of Figure 1. Is this correct Willis?
I do have some thoughts on this:
He ain’t dead yet?
Getting closer by the day.
As are we all, unfortunately.
Ah well. This 68 y/o is doing what he can. Yesterday I was helping my 72 y/o neighbor build his log cabin. It will be our get away man cave in his field behind my property. 13′ x 10′. We are now 13 courses up. Over the window frames and up to the top of the door frames. Three courses to go. But all the timber now will be full length for the walls and thus heavy so all the rest will have to lifted by his tractor with a boom attached to bucket.
The objective is to get the wall to full height and then put a temporary roof on it and seal it up for the winter. Then next year finish it up. It will have a covered front porch on it. He already has the wood stove and stove pipe for it. He was thinking we would cut and split and install cedar shaker shingles for the roof but on further refection will be going with a metal roof both the match the roof on the adjacent picnic shelter and to minimize the fire hazard. I would have liked to have learned how to do shaker shingles.
Anyway, that kind of stuff keeps me moving and that is a big part of the battle in maintaining health and mobility and thus making life worth living as one gets older.
“We would be damned fools and bad scientists”
He missed out “liars and frauds” and it’s not “would” it is most definitely “are”
If only his name was Henson, then we could truly call him and his MUPPETS out!
The guy is a disgrace.
Some very funny foreign names there, eh eh? Like mine. Are they scientists?
Climate scientist is an oxymoron.
C’mon, let’s give the guy a break. I doubt any of his 17 co-authors sport such a good hat.
What they actually contributed should always be asked. Especially when you have so many authors on a paper. That applies to him too.
Willis, here is some early history on Hansen’s aerosols.
In 1976, Hansen’s group simply copied the fraudulent one dimensional radiative convective (1-D RC) 1967 model developed by Manabe and Wetherald and added 10 more ‘minor species’. Then in 1981 they added a slab ocean model, the CO2 doubling ritual and the calculation of the global temperature record using a contrived set of ‘radiative forcings’ to the 1-D RC model.
There are 6 fundamental scientific errors in M&W, 1967 and nine in Hansen, 1981. I have posted more detailed articles on my website (see links below).
This is a brief summary.
Arrhenius oversimplified climate energy transfer and created CO2 induced warming as a mathematical artifact in his 1896 model. He used a uniform air volume illuminated by a ‘24 hour average’ sun. His surface was a partially reflective blackbody with zero heat capacity. When the CO2 concentration was increased, the long wave IR (LWIR) flux emitted to space by this model decreased. Arrhenius simply increased the surface temperature until the LWIR flux at the top of the model increased back to its original value to match the solar flux. This is the source of CO2 induced global warming. In a real atmosphere, these temperature changes are too small to measure in the normal daily and seasonal temperature variation.
In their 1967 paper, Manabe and Wetherald modified the Arrhenius model and added a 9 or 18 layer radiative transfer calculation with fixed relative humidity distribution. To calculate the warming from a CO2 doubling they started with a steady state 1-D RC model for 300 ppm. Then they used their radiative transfer calculation to determine the rate of warming for each model layer produced by a doubling of the CO2 concentration. The maximum warming rate in the troposphere is +0.08 °C per day. Next, they used a ‘time marching’ algorithm to calculate the air layer warmings over an 8 hour period and added these temperature increases to the start temperatures for each layer. In addition, the CO2 warming artifacts were now amplified by a ‘water vapor feedback’ created by the fixed RH assumption. They continued this process until the model reached a new steady state. This took about 1100 iterations or a year of model time. For clear sky they got a temperature increase of 2.9 °C for a ‘CO2 doubling’. They never explained how these small 8 hour temperature changes of <0.03 °C could accumulate in a real atmosphere with a real sun and day to day temperature changes.
Hansen started out at NASA modeling planetary atmospheres, mainly Mars and Venus. As funding decreased at the end of the Apollo (moon landing) program, his group was told to get climate money if they wanted to continue their studies. They had no clue how the earth’s climate worked, so they just copied the 1967 M&W paper (see Figure 1). In Wang, Hansen et al, 1976 they added 10 ‘minor species’ to the M&W 1967 model and claimed a ‘greenhouse warming’. Then in Hansen et al, 1981 they added a slab ocean model, the CO2 doubling ritual and the calculation of the global temperature record using a contrived set of ‘radiative forcings’ to the 1-D RC model. They claimed that they could simulate a ‘global average temperature’ using an increase in CO2 concentration and variations in ‘solar flux’ and ‘aerosols’ (see fig. 5). They ‘tuned’ their model feedbacks to give a climate sensitivity of 2.8 °C (see Table 1). They also ignored the obvious warming signal from the 1940 peak of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (see fig. 3). Any warming is just a mathematical artifact of the calculation. This is the start of the radiative forcing climate model fraud.
As computer technology improved, coupled atmosphere-ocean GCMs were used to simulate the global mean climate record using a contrived set of radiative forcings. The 1-D RC algorithms were hidden inside the unit cells of the GCMs. The models are still ‘tuned’ to match the ‘global mean temperature record’. In the Third IPCC Climate Assessment Report (TAR) [IPCC, 2001], the number of ‘forcing agents’ used in the climate models had increased to 15. In addition, starting with the TAR, the radiative forcings were separated into ‘anthropogenic’ and ‘natural’ forcings. This was used as a political tool to control the energy supply by claiming an anthropogenic cause for ‘extreme weather events’. Most of the initial work was performed at the UK Hadley Climate Center [Stott et al, 2000, Tett et al, 2000]. This is the foundation for ‘Net Zero’.
For more details see the following articles posted on my website.
The Double Fantasy of Net Zero
The ‘Equilibrium’ Climate Modeling Fraud
Time Dependent Climate Energy Transfer: The Forgotten Legacy of Joseph Fourier
A Review of the 1967 Paper by Manabe and Wetherald
A Review of the 1981 Paper by Hansen et al
Figure 1: The fraudulent M&W model that was copied by Hansen’s group.
It deserves an article here on WUWT.
Could you do that ?
“We are
beginning to sufferexperiencing the effect of ourFaustian bargaingrowing urban areas. That is why therate of global warming is acceleratingeffect of urban heat island is being seen.”It is frustrating that statements from these “scientists” keep having to be corrected.