Hansen : Two Degrees Warming By 2006 – Earth To Perish

ScreenHunter_197 Mar. 27 16.10

ScreenHunter_198 Mar. 27 16.10

The Press-Courier – Jun 11, 1986

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Hansen : Two Degrees Warming By 2006 – Earth To Perish

  1. Robertv says:

    For over 800,000 years, ice has been a permanent feature of the Arctic ocean. In the near future it could be ice free for the first time since humans walked the Earth.



    For the last 10,000 years, summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has been far from constant. For several thousand years, there was much less sea ice in The Arctic Ocean — probably less than half of current amounts.

  2. Brian G Valentine says:

    Despite his complete insanity, I don’t think Carl Sagan would be very proud of his protege, Hansen

  3. Robertv says:

    the sky IS falling!

    Greenhouse gases have also led to the cooling of the atmosphere at levels higher than the stratosphere. Over the past 30 years, the Earth’s surface temperature has increased 0.2-0.4 °C, while the temperature in the mesosphere, about 50-80 km above ground, has cooled 5-10 °C (Beig et al., 2006). There is no appreciable cooling due to ozone destruction at these altitudes, so nearly all of this dramatic cooling is due to the addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Even greater cooling of 17 °C per decade has been observed high in the ionosphere, at 350 km altitude. This has affected the orbits of orbiting satellites, due to decreased drag, since the upper atmosphere has shrunk and moved closer to the surface (Lastovicka et al., 2006). The density of the air has declined 2-3% per decade the past 30 years at 350 km altitude. So, in a sense, the sky IS falling!


  4. Eric Simpson says:

    Turns out, according to this week’s The Economist of all places, not only has there been no crazy 2°C of warming, but there’s been NO warming for 15 years. Not any. Wuwt did a good piece on it, my comment:
    [from The Economist:] The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. [paraphrased: it might mean this, it might mean that, it might mean… who knows what]
    Or it might mean that the Fear Mongering Chicken Littles have been full of deception from the start, that CO2 is not connected with climate as the 3 minute video shows (as it calls out Al Gore for repeating the now retracted ipcc deception on CO2): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWarmingSwindle_CO2Lag
    Let’s see. CO2 is rising sharply, temps are flat. And as per the video link above there is NO demonstrated causal correlation between CO2 & climate temperature. Maybe what it means is that CO2 is a dud, as is obvious from the video link above! And maybe the only reason that everyone seems all puzzled by the lack of warming is because of media hype and that 90%+ of the people haven’t got the message on CO2 that is presented in the video (so share it and spread the word about it).
    The Economist. Now, that’s what is surprising. I think we have a “reputable” link now to use when we want to say that there’s been no warming for 15 years, or when we want to say that the climate models have ALL failed. That was what was said c. 10 years ago: “Do you know why we know man is causing global warming? Because the computer models prove it! And we know that there is a causal correlation between CO2 & temperatures.”

  5. Brian G Valentine says:

    And we know that there is a causal correlation between CO2 & temperatures.

    An example of the use of the Obama-inaugural pronoun, “we.”

  6. David Appell says:

    I have noticed that this blog doesn’t allow people to obtain or use new knowledge. Is science allowed to get better?

    • Andy Oz says:

      Hansen predicted 2 degree increase by 2006. Was his model fraudulent, faulty or just not adjusted enough? Please provide a link where he explains how he got it so wrong.

      • David Appell says:

        Modelers have a saying: “All models are wrong, but some are useful.”

        Hansen’s was very useful.

        Do you think science has, throughout history, gotten it right the very first time, every time?

      • chris y says:

        Some guy fishing for clicks to his vacuum-state blog says- “Hansen’s was very useful.”

        Indeed. Much of his 1980’s model results were either off by a factor of ten, or had the wrong sign. However, the models increased NASA GISS funding by a factor of ten. This lesson provided an excellent guidepost for other ‘scientists’ to mimic in their unending quest for research funding.

        The Big Bang Theory-
        Physics Dept head Gablehauser explains reality to the guys-
        Gablehauser: Let me ask you something, what do you think the business of this place is?
        Leonard (after he, Sheldon and Howard whisper to each other): Science?
        Gablehauser: Money.
        Howard: Told you.
        The next line could be: And my silly climate prediction ads in the NYT and Wirth’s superheated hearings are going to raise us a pile of money taller than… well, taller than you (enviously ruffling Howard’s hair.)

      • Dave N says:

        “Do you think science has, throughout history, gotten it right the very first time, every time?”

        The difference between great scientists and junk scientists is that when their models are failing, the junk scientists delude themselves into thinking reality is at fault.

      • Me says:

        David Appell says:

        March 28, 2013 at 2:53 am

        Modelers have a saying: “All models are wrong, but some are useful.”

        Hansen’s was very useful.

        Do you think science has, throughout history, gotten it right the very first time, every time?
        Hey, you may have finally had a usefully thought but, I err Me don’t think you’ll understand beyond yer usual tripe you push. 😆

    • Andy Oz says:

      That is funny David! You are so original.
      You are now copying Steven’s archived newspaper extraction method.
      Why do you spend so much time on Steve’s Blog? Is it part of the CAGW evangelism requirements to try and convert heretics? Or is it because you think you are the little boy with a finger in the dyke?

      • Ivan says:

        It sure beats the sh!t out of me. I suspect that he is seriously delusional that he has something vaguely worthwhile to say, and that anyone is interested in reading it.
        Wrong on both counts, of course.

      • Eric Barnes says:

        “finger in the dyke”
        So insensitive. 🙂

      • Andy Oz says:

        So you are an evangelical, Dave. Thanks for the confirmation.
        If it’s not too personal, will you also receive a lot of taxpayers money from carbon credits sales just like Al Gore et al will? After all, that’s what it’s all about really, isn’t it? Money and piles of it. And a US carbon tax is the ultimate goal. The soon to be repealed Australian carbon tax was planned to rake in $131 per tonne ($75 Billion per year) by 2050, according to our Treasury model. $10,000 per household per year!!
        If the US paid $131 per tonne for it’s emissions, that would be how many trillion per year? And in whose pockets does that money end up? And who pays the money?
        With a prize that large, what is a few lies here or there, eh? No biggie, right? Scare the rabbits into a pernicious tax that keeps them poor and a very few rich. Use a bunch of bought and paid for scientists to spruik scarey stories which are complete nonsense, but it doesn’t matter as long as the tax bill gets passed into law. You are wasting your time Dave, The word is out. CAGW is a crock.

    • Dave N says:

      Hansen’s is lousier by a streak.

    • Brian G Valentine says:

      Put some water in your bong, relight, and call us in the morning if you still have a fever.

    • Marian says:

      Difference is!

      Some outcomes of forecasts or predictions aren’t going to pan out.

      The Big Difference amongst Chicken Little Alarmists is:

      Iconic Alarmist Academics have in some cases 30 yrs behind them of continuing catastrophic failings in all their forecasts and predictions!

      • squid2112 says:

        The difference is, a real “scientist” would first, and foremost, ask “what did I do wrong?” and work to correct it, acknowledging that there is something wrong (ie: Wait, don’t drink that, there’s something wrong). A junk “scientist” (like Hansen, et al) continues to insist that he is right, advocate for destructive policies based upon his wrongs (ie: You MUST drink it, it is the only thing that can save you), fabricate data attempting to correct his wrongs and never addressing the real problem or admitting he is wrong, no matter the cost,

        That’s the difference…

    • Jimmy Haigh. says:

      Gordon Bennet! He’s back!

  7. Chewer says:

    Predictive powers concerning climate is unreal.
    Our neighbor, Mars now has what is called a dead core. As such it has no magnetosphere or any of the usual spheres associated with in and within it such as a multi-layered & always changing ionosphere, mesosphere, stratosphere and troposphere.
    So, the temperature and pressure soup combined with the plasma above right on down to the air we breathe and the ever-changing particle soups within each layer leave a long train of knowledge yet to be known.
    When a group forms to make a working hypothesis based molecular on C02 only, you need to ask yourself, WTF!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *