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.
In other words, TSIF – The Sky Is Falling.
To hope to have any impact, however fleeting, gotta get in your licks while you cann such as when the faithful’s minds have been filled with “the hottest summer ever” noise.
This seems to be high on the Globalist agenda right now. Covering up land grabs like the Lahaina DEW fire and others is assisted by general warming hysteria, as they can claim the wildfire is global warming. A bit idiotic–but half the public are idiots. Ramping up fear in general is useful for selling anything and they have several loads of goods to sell us right now, especially the need to choose a side to hate in the current WW 3 effort in the mideast.
@Willis it is pretty obvious: with every super el nino (1997, 2010 2023) there is a temperature jump, followed by a temperature plateau, so be prepared for the coming 13 year plateau and a super el nino in 2036.
Energy for El Nino comes mostly from the Sun and the winds.
If the next solar cycle is a low one as predicted, the 2036 El Nino might not be so super.
Bit of a wait to find out, though 🙂
The only thing for certain about the future weather/climate is we don’t know, anyone who claims otherwise should be tared and feather and ran out of town. Also we know it likely to change, which way and how much only God only knows and that information he gives to no one.
James Hansen leaves NASA to become full-time activist…Too bad he isn’t a full time inmate somewhere. He can even keep his stupid hat.
Say what?
“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.”
Very true, but it can also be seen that the area above the zero line (acceleration) exceeds the area below the zero line (deceleration) therefore there has been net acceleration over the interval. No? It also seems that there are two acceleration episodes, one from 1920 to 1950 and a second from 1980 to 2010 and they are roughly equal suggesting that increasing CO2 has nothing to do with it.
The acceleration chart profile looks very similar to the United States regional chart profile (Hansen 1999):
5e-05 spacing in the major tick marks in your acceleration graph!!
Yikes!! Hold onto your hat. Extreme no change ahead.
The graph of acceleration is actually a strong argument that it is not CO2 that is driving temperature.
The acceleration curve strongly suggests that there is something quasi cyclic that is affecting temperature. CO2 does not correlate with temperature ac elevation, but it should if AGW is correct. Another nail in the AGW coffin.
Has Hansen’s lab been rescued from the sea?
Or was it a real eastate scheme to pick up waterfront property at firesale prices?
Can you explain in a bit more detail how you determined the ’50-year trailing acceleration’? I’m trying to reproduce to understand the argument better. Thanks in advance!
The air is cleaner than has been since 2018, the Australian brush fire particulates have rained out, things should start heating up.
It cannot be the observed data. Observed data doesn’t change. Only the methods of observation can change. It’s called “Re-analysis” and is based on opinion. Since opinion is not science, whatever these folks are saying cannot be science either. That, by definition, makes anything said useless for effective policy determination.