30th Anniversary Of Hansen’s First Great Global Warming Fail

Thirty years ago, James Hansen made some spectacularly poor global warming predictions before Congress.

2016-06-13-04-32-47 2016-06-13-04-33-172016-06-13-04-33-44

12 Jun 1986, Page 12 – The Evening Times

Hansen predicted two degrees global warming by 2006.

2016-06-13-04-34-19

He was off by a factor of ten. Earth warmed about 0.2 degrees from June 1986 to June 2006.

2016-06-13-04-42-29

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Hansen predicted 3 or 4 degrees of US warming between 2010 and 2020

2016-06-13-04-53-03

The US has seen little or no warming since 1986.

2016-06-13-04-48-37

Hansen predicted a huge increase in the number of hot days at Omaha, Nebraska and Washington, DC.

2016-06-13-04-52-50

The exact opposite has occurred. Both places have seen a decline in the number of hot days.

LINCOLN_VA_#DaysAboveMaximumTemperatureThreshold90F_Jan_Dec_1895_2015

ASHLANDNO2_NE_#DaysAboveMaximumTemperatureThreshold90F_Jan_Dec_1895_2015

Climate scientists have no idea what they are talking about, and their CO2 superstition is not based on science.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to 30th Anniversary Of Hansen’s First Great Global Warming Fail

  1. SFX says:

    Orwell noted that in order to keep people from getting out of hand, the past has to be modified, to match the current narrative.

    • Winnipeg Boy says:

      Global warming, due to greenhouse gasses, is the latest in a long series of one-factor theories about a multi-factor world. Such theories have often enjoyed great popularity, despite how often they have turned out to be wrong.
      Thomas Sowell

  2. tom0mason says:

    James Hansen is one of the greatest consensus scientists ever.
    He and the IPCCs (Inter-governmental Panel on Consensus Climate science) probably the largest social experiment ever conducted on the world population.

  3. Don Penim says:

    More hype from NOAA:

    – – -“Destruction of Alaska continues under record heat” – – –

    http://www.sfgate.com/local/science/article/Alaska-continues-to-melt-under-record-heat-7974295.php

  4. Andy DC says:

    Hansen should have been laughed out of town a long time ago.

  5. Sparks says:

    I don’t understand where the political aspect, there were both democrat and republicans represented in pushing CAGW over the same time period.

    Is it a civil service thing?

    • You don’t understand much, do you?

      • Sparks says:

        Cheap shot Morgan… I never understood politics, hands up…I’m the first to admit it, I was always too busy building schools, homes, infrastructure for business and the day to day technological advancement you need in your life for your family to be strong and healthy, I never had time to sit on my arse and see the political BS around me, have another cheep shot asshole!! defend the garbage pile while having a go at me. awesome!! :)

        • Not a cheap shot. Saying you don’t understand where the political aspect of global warming is, is like saying you don’t understand where the musical aspect is in the Beatles.

        • Just a clue. 97% of the people who push global warming are south wingers spinning everything counter-clockwise.

          • Sparks says:

            I’m sure the figure of 97% is BS of the bat lol but you’re annoyed that I said;

            “there were both democrat and republicans represented in pushing CAGW over the same time period”

            Which is true, Somehow you believe that politics is a boolean process, when it is in fact an abstract artefact of the deviousness and dishonesty that promotes the same common interest in the name of their mutual greed.

    • Andy DC says:

      I believe there was a period at the beginning of the “movement” that we wanted to give scientists some benefit of the doubt. I know I did, I believe Tony did, most people did.

      But with time, science degenerated into hysterical shrieking and the claims became more and more outrageous. When you started looking into the actual data, you quickly learned that these “scientists” were playing fast and loose with the truth and ignoring the scientific method.

      As you continued to delve into the money trail and who stood to gain politically, it kept stinking worse and worse. It kept looking more and more like a fig leaf for world socialism/communist, rather than science, so it was only natural that those on the left would be drawn into the “movement” and that those on the right would be repulsed by the whole notion.

      A true climate crisis would require world government rather than free and independent nations. Because if each country did what was in their own interest, there would be no way to achieve the necessary unity to fight the global warming boogie man. What a better pretext for Marx/Lenin’s dream of world socialism and the destruction of the American model of freedom and liberty!

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        I believe there was a period at the beginning …

        I believe that’s true for many of us. Margaret Thatcher is a good case in point.

        It is no accident that the collectivist shriekers won’t mention her climate change views past mid-90s and that in the end she employed her understanding of science and politics, and applied her own precautionary principle to the catastrophic global warming fraud:

        “Government interventions are problematic, so intervene only when the case is fully proven.”

        ———-
        Thatcher & Global Warming: From Alarmist to Skeptic
        By Robert Bradley Jr. — April 11, 2013
        https://www.masterresource.org/climate-exaggeration/thatcher-alarmist-to-skeptic

  6. ACR says:

    Two observations:

    1. Hanson said that the number of days over 80 degrees would increase in Washington DC and Omaha, Neb. Tony graphed the number of days over 90 degrees. Why the disconnect?

    2. Hanson said that Washington DC and Omaha had 35 days above 80 degrees in 1986. Tony’s graph shows that there were about 35 days above **90** degrees in 1986. I bet the number of days above 80 in those cities is closer to 100 … 3x the figure offered by Hanson.

  7. Pingback: 30th Anniversary Of Hansen’s First Great Global Warming Fail | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

  8. Norm Kalmanovitch says:

    It is actually the 35th Anniversary of Hansen’s Great Global Warming Fail
    “The First World Climate Conference recognized climate change as a serious problem in 1979.” http://unfccc.int/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/climate_change_information_kit/items/300.php
    With no evidence for support the UNEP turned to Hansen to provide (fabricate) the evidence which he did in Hansen et al 1981 by stating “The most sophisticated models suggest a mean warming of 2° to 3.5°C for doubling of the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm (6-8)”. SCIENCE, VOL. 213, 28 AUGUST 1981
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
    To have the models project a physically impossible level of global warming from a doubling of CO2 (1970 Nimbus 4 Satellite showed 14.77micron wavelength already saturated at 325ppmv) Hansen used the circular argument that the increase in CO2 concentration from 300 to 340ppmv caused the 0.5°C of observed warming since industrialization.
    Hansen then fit this to 5.35ln(340/300) = 0.67W/m^2 and then used a climate sensitivity factor of 0.75°C/W/m^2 with 0.67 x 0.75 = 0.5°C
    Model #4 in the table at the top right of page 959 produced 2.78°C of warming from a doubling of CO2
    5.35ln(2) = 3.71 x 0.75 = 2.78°C
    It is this contrived CO2 forcing parameter and climate sensitivity factor that have been driving the climate models to predict an impossible level of global warming since 1981 therefore marking the 35th anniversary of the climate change fraud.
    See: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSENMARSCHALLENGE.pdf
    and Asking one simple question at:
    http://jimpeden.blogspot.ca/2009/11/norm-kalmanovich-on-global-warming-hoax.html

  9. Fred says:

    Help Canada solve the crisis of Climate Change.

    Climate McClimate Face???

    http://letstalkclimateaction.ca/ideas

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Heh. Great comments at this time.*)

      I expect the climate shriekers’ rapid response teams will arrive soon to remedy the situation.

      —–
      *) Saint Suzuki, mandatory euthanasia of 65-year-olds, CO2 is plant food, video links to calm the agitated alarmists, cold water showers only, go nuclear, Einstein principle, etc.

  10. BobbyK says:

    Once again, this is OT I know, I hope I’m not bothering anyone. I don’t mean to come off as a nuisance or anything like that, just trying to gain peace of mind on things I don’t understand. For a long time I’ve suffered with OCD and anxiety, I think I have aspergers syndrome, but anyways, that’s not what this is about. Just hoping to see certain articles put to shame. I’ll be listing them here: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/11/1513797/-Maintaining-the-Status-Quo-on-Climate-Change-Will-Kill-Us http://grist.org/climate-energy/no-climate-change-wont-kill-the-planet-but-itll-kill-plenty-of-people/ http://michellemalkin.com/2016/04/21/enjoying-the-weather-its-because-climate-change-is-about-to-kill-us/

    • AndyG55 says:

      ROFLMAO,

      When are you going to wake up that warming is PURELY a modelling problem, NOT a real one. It is nothing but alarmist propaganda PAP.

      There has been ZERO warming from anthropogenic sources in the whole the satellite data.

      All real science now points there being a cooling trend for the next decade or so.

      So, only models that have already been proven monumentally farcical, back by ZERO science, and even if there were some warming of 1.5C it would be in the areas that could actually do with some warming. There is ZERO science that shows such a warming would be in any way a problem.

      It is cooling that will cause deaths, not a bit of minor warming in the ex-tropics.

      And its not happening anyway. WAKE THE **** UP. Bobby.

      You are a moronically gullible twerp if you fall for tripe like those articles..

      • BobbyK says:

        I wasn’t looking to be laughed at or insulted, I’m here for help, pure and simple. I respect this site and the supporters of it so please don’t make me regret looking to be better educated on this subject. I’ve already always had a really messed up life, I’ve always had people insult and make fun of me, I’m used to it but that’s not why I’m here. Look, bottom line, I’m only 32 and my biggest fear is death, I worry about it all the time, that I’m gonna go out in some huge horrible global event. I’ve always known that I’m not right in the head, but I’m still here and I do my best to stay strong but when it comes to things like this, I struggle. So could you possibly point out specific things in reference to the articles I posted and give reasons as to why these people are wrong? If it’s not too much to ask, I’d really appreciate it, thank you.

        • AndyG55 says:

          My biggest advice to you is to stop hanging about alarmist sites like the ones you linked to, and go and have some fun.

          Stop worrying about things are just are not happening.

        • AndyG55 says:

          just the statement “even the best climate models” should be enough to alert you to the utter fallacy of the situation. Only one or two of the climate models have come near reality with any of their projection, and that was by pure luck. The range of projections is also a farce, so much so that the model mean come nowhere near reality.

          Yet that is what all the scare tactics are based on.

          NONSENSE and very, very bad models.

          Reality is that there is ZERO anthropogenic warming signal in the real temperature data…

          NONE WHAT-SO-EVER.

          1. No warming in the UAH satellite record before the 1998 El Nino

          2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.

          3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.

          4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.

          5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002

          6. No warming in Japan surface data for 20 years

          7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.

          8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979-1997, the no warming from 20012015

          9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower.

          10. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982 2005, then cooling (is this a CO2 thing as well?)

          11. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016.

          That is DESPITE a large climb in CO2 levels over those periods.

          There IS ABSOLUTELY NO CO2 WARMING effect evident in the temperature data. NONE WHAT-SO-EVER.

          The ONLY very slight warming has come from El Nino and ocean circulation effects.

          DO

          YOU

          UNDER-

          STAND !!

        • AndyG55 says:

          Bobby, Sorry for getting a bit narky.

          I just get annoyed having to make the same points over and over again, (and I think I mixed you up with a “barry something” )

          As I said.

          If these scare tactic really worry you..

          You KNOW they are based on a LIE….

          …. so just don’t listen to them.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Bobby,

          Andy is right. Don’t hang around depressing people like the Krazy Kos Kidz. Try to have fun like these guys do.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          This guy’s enjoying himself, too:

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          His Aussie pals are on the case, too. They have a ringmaster who can ride a tiny bicycle and shout about being oppressed by carbon at the same time …

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          You could also join a catastrophic climate change dance troupe. They are a bunch of jolly good fellows with plump girls in animal onesies!

          • AndyG55 says:

            These are the people Bobby is actually thnking are RATIONAL.

            You say you have “issues”, Bobby, but surely not that bad !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            “with plump girls in animal onesies! ”

            Is that a new sort of hijab for a slightly different totalitarian religion.

        • Catweazle666 says:

          “I’m only 32 and my biggest fear is death”

          I suggest you become a little better acquainted with the old feller with the scythe, he’s not really all that bad when you get to know him. Try skydiving, motorcycle racing (my personal favourite) or some other pursuit where the only thing between you and eternity is your skill, your nerve and hopefully a fair slice of luck.

          You never know, you might get to quite like the old chap when you get a bit better acquainted with him.

          And whatever you do, keep away from crackpot alarmist blogs and websites!

    • AndyG55 says:

      The planet ♥’s CO2

    • AndyG55 says:

      Your last reference is actually more down to earth..

      You should actually read some of it.

      Did you pick it because of the heading.. ;-)

      This is a particularly useful comment from Papa Louie

      “This is one of the big problems with climate-change alarmism. They assumed from the beginning that a little warming would be harmful, but they have no evidence for such an assumption. It was, however, very useful in getting grant money flowing their way. For all we know, a little warming will be net beneficial for the planet. Life thrived in the distant past when temperatures were warmer than today. So there is no reason to assume that a degree or two of warming will be catastrophic.

      They also assumed that the feedbacks to warming would be positive and would cause warming to accelerate. Hansen thought it would be so bad that the oceans would evaporate and turn earth into Venus. But none of that has happened or even begun to happen.

      In the climate-gate emails, one scientist admitted that climate science knows very little about the effects of clouds. If they don’t much about clouds, then they can’t justify their claims that clouds (or increased evaporation) will cause warming to accelerate. For all they know, clouds are a negative feedback to warming by deflecting sunlight and helping to keep temperatures from rising further. In the tropics, clouds do just that. They act as a damper on warming. On days that are warmer, the clouds form earlier and cool things down. On cooler days, the clouds form later, allowing temperatures to rise. That mechanism is why temperatures in the tropics vary so little and why the tropics have shown no sign of global warming.

      They’ve been trying to hype the past few months as the “hottest ever.” But they know we’ve been going through an El Niño and are about to enter a La Niña that will cause temperatures to drop again. I’m not sure how they will explain it when it happens. Even the adjustments they have been making to the global data sets, which cool the past and warm the present, have only produced a very slow rise in temperatures, but no acceleration. The lack of predicted acceleration in global temperatures and in sea-level rise is proving to be a very inconvenient truth to climate alarmists.”

      • Jason Calley says:

        “They’ve been trying to hype the past few months as the “hottest ever.” But they know we’ve been going through an El Niño and are about to enter a La Niña that will cause temperatures to drop again. ”

        Almost certainly the temperatures will drop — but the “hottest ever” claims will continue once the data is altered.

        As was said by several people upstream in the comments, I initially trusted that the self-styled climatologists were honestly reporting the facts. When the claims became ever more hysterical (and as some of my friends became ever more concerned) I started to look in to them. The more I looked, the more obvious it was that the danger was greatly exaggerated. “It must be some honest mistake on their part!” I thought. But as the claims continued to become crazier and crazier, and as I saw case after case where the scientific errors were being ignored even after being clearly pointed out, I gave up on the “honest mistake” hypothesis. There is an old maxim that says “do not ascribe to deceit that which can plausibly be simple error.” A lot of people trot that out, but at some point — at some point! — the simple error no longer remains plausible and any objective person says, “The pattern is too clear; this is fraud!” CAGW is fraud.

    • AndrewS says:

      BobbyK, You just need to get a perspective that extends beyond the hype.
      In the distant past(Geologically speaking), CO2 was at levels several 100’s of times todays levels. and more, yet Earth has never gone into a runaway warming state. It never will.
      Have a look at the series of graphs here and you will see what I am saying: https://lectrikdog.wordpress.com/2016/05/15/putting-the-hockey-stick-in-a-proper-context/

    • Andy DC says:

      Have you ever heard such a bunch of hysterical, terrified, nervous Nellies? The changes in climate since the industrial revolution have been microscopic compared to the enormous and totally natural changes that first get us into an Ice Age and then ended it only about 10,000 ago, which is a blink of the eye in geological terms.

      When you were born on this planet, there never was a promise of a perfect, stable climate, or that the earth would never challenge us to adapt in some ways.

      There is also no guarantee that any change in our behavior will not have a negative rather than a positive effect on the climate.

      The climate over the last 75 years has been remarkably stable and benign. We have already reduced pollution considerably and will continue to do so. There is no real evidence at this time that we are doing anything wrong with respect to worsening the climate. In a lot of ways, you can argue that the climate has improved. Fewer hurricanes, fewer tornadoes, fewer wild fires. repeated bumper crops in the corn belt, fewer 100 degree heat waves. Where is the problem? Where is the beef?

      • AndyG55 says:

        “The climate over the last 75 years has been remarkably stable and benign. ”

        Well said, other Andy. :-) :-)

  11. gallopingcamel says:

    Hansen is still producing junk science. You have to admire the absurdity of this:
    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294

    This “paper”is a veritable mine of nonsense. My personal favorite is Figure 7a that tries to explain the glacial cycles in terms of CO2:
    “The equilibrium response of the control run (1950 atmospheric composition, CO2 approx. 310 ppm) and runs with successive CO2 doublings and halvings reveals that snowball Earth instability occurs just beyond three CO2 halvings.”

    Figure 7a shows 16 Kelvin per halving of [CO2] which might explain the last seven glacial cycles but for the fact that [CO2] lagged temperature by 500 to 800 years.

    In Hansen’s loony world cause follows effect.

  12. AndyG55 says:

    OT.. I thought it might be fun to re-visit the Wadham’s trajectory graph from a previous thread. :-)

    https://realclimatescience.com/2016/06/arctic-to-be-ice-free-again-this-year/

  13. Pingback: Global Warming Prediction 30 Years Later: How Is It Faring? | Michigan Standard

  14. Pingback: Global Warming Prediction 30 Years Later: How Is It Faring? | Christian Conservative Daily

  15. Pingback: Science On The Verge Of A Nervous Breakdown | Atlas Monitor

  16. BobbyK says:

    I appreciate all the info, I really do. I go back and forth with the whole issue because I don’t understand it. Sometimes it can be really hard to believe and accept that the president, NASA, NOAA, and many other organizations and scientists who say that man made climate change IS happening and that it’s the biggest threat that faces humanity…..are lying to us or don’t understand the science. And when others come on here and say that the graphs are cherry picked or the info on here is wrong, or others who say that the climate change skeptics don’t understand the science and are confusing weather with climate, it can all be very concerning. So, not that I doubt the intelligence of anyone on here or anything that’s said, but if you don’t mind me asking, how do you know 100% for sure that what you say and your science is correct and what they say and their science is wrong?

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Sorry, Bobby, you came to a wrong place to get 100% certainty. You won’t get that from skeptics but if you go to alarmist sources you’ll find they have anywhere from 97% to 113% confidence that they are right *). I think having so much assurance could have a calming effect on one’s nerves as one could remain perpetually alarmed and wouldn’t suffer the devastating ups and downs you have described.

      ———-
      Specifically, the spread in scientific certainty is from 97% at Skeptical Science (SkS) to 113% at above referenced Clowns for Climate (CfC).

    • Andy DC says:

      Bobby,

      Even on this blog there are few who will disagree that there is some warming and that some of it is man made. It is all a question of how much. Most here will say that the warming has been very minor. In fact if you take raw temperatures from reliable US stations away from cities, there has been virtually no warming since 1940.

      There was actually cooling between 1940 and 1980, while CO2 was rising the entire time. It warmed from 1980 until 1998, but temperatures have been basically flat since then. My opinion is that if warming has taken place for only 18 out of the last 75 years, we have every right to be skeptical.

      You have probably heard instead that it is warming out of control and wondering how they are making that claim. The claims of warming are based on “adjustments” made by climate scientists to the raw data!
      Nearly all of the adjustments are made to warm the present and cool the past, to give the “hockey stick” illusion of rapid warming.

      The alarmists claim they have scientific reasons for these very warm biased adjustments, which are very difficult to understand, but to me it sounds a lot like cheating.

      Those with a vested financial and political interest in the warming agenda are messing with the data, to create the illusion of the change they had predicted 25 or 30 years ago. It is exactly like an umpire that has placed a bet on a baseball game “adjusting” the strike zone so his team would win.

Leave a Reply

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