NASA’s James Hansen started the global warming scare in earnest, during the very hot summer of 1988.
Until now, scientists have been cautious about attributing rising global temperatures of recent years to the predicted global warming caused by pollutants in the atmosphere, known as the ”greenhouse effect.” But today Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told a Congressional committee that it was 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.
Dr. Hansen, a leading expert on climate change, said in an interview that there was no ”magic number” that showed when the greenhouse effect was actually starting to cause changes in climate and weather. But he added, ”It is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here.” An Impact Lasting Centuries If Dr. Hansen and other scientists are correct, then humans, by burning of fossil fuels and other activities, have altered the global climate in a manner that will affect life on earth for centuries to come.
Dr. Hansen, director of NASA’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, testifed before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Continue reading the main story He and other scientists testifying before the Senate panel today said that projections of the climate change that is now apparently occurring mean that the Southeastern and Midwestern sections of the United States will be subject to frequent episodes of very high temperatures and drought in the next decade and beyond
He made temperature forecasts for three emissions scenarios. Scenario A was increasing emission growth rates. Scenario B was decreasing emission growth rates. Scenario C was no emissions after the year 2000.
“We have considered cases ranging from business as usual, which is scenario A, to draconian emission cuts, scenario C, which would totally eliminate net trace gas growth by year 2000.”
So how did Hansen do? Global warming theory is based on warming the troposphere, which should warm faster than the surface. The graph below shows the five year mean of lower troposphere temperatures measured by UAH satellite.
The next graph overlays the satellite lower troposphere temperatures in red, on Hansen’s 1988 forecasts – at the same scale and normalized to the early 1980’s. As you can see, troposphere temperatures have followed zero emissions Scenario C – meaning there is no evidence humans have influenced the climate.
The other satellite data set is provided by climate alarmist Carl Mears at Remote Sensing Systems, and it also shows temperatures below the (yellow) range of climate models.
Mears’ recent graphs have been altered upwards. Two years ago, the discrepancy between models and measured temperatures was even larger.
The next image overlays the 2017 graph on the 2019 graph. You can see that Mears has moved everything up to the upper limit of his error blue bounds – but even so still shows that the climate models are failing.
Four years ago I predicted that Mears, under extreme pressure from the climate mafia, would alter his data to match the fake surface temperature data sets.
Look for the satellite data to be adjusted to bring it into compliance with the fully fraudulent surface temperatures. The Guardian is now working to discredit UAH, so it seems likely that RSS will soon be making big changes – to match the needs of the climate mafia. Bookmark this post.
That is exactly what happened, but even after data tampering – the models are failing.
Hansen’s 1988 testimony came during the last really hot, dry summer in the United States.
He predicted increased heat and drought, and failed on both counts. The frequency of hot afternoons has plummeted in the US over the past century.
Hansen focused on Midwest heat and drought in his 1988 testimony, but no place has cooled faster than the Midwest.
The US is getting wetter, and Hansen’s 1988 testimony came during the last really dry year.
Climate model forecasts have shown a 100% failure rate, yet mainstream climate science is based almost entirely around them.