James Hansen's Worthless Climate Predictions

[widebody123]

Steve, you are a victim of a disinformation campaign. Give it up, watch a game of cricket/rugby and when you've sobered up, research the facts.

[theecanmole]

New Zealand's No 1 climate Blog Troll hits You Tube. Crawl back under your rock.

[drkstrong]

Steve, you are being factually challenged on this. Hansen's models were the 1st ever such models & contained few factors in 1988, especially unknown at that time was the cooling role of aerosols. Once that was added in his & other predictions have been very good.

2nd I dont know where you got the black line from but it is not the official US global climate data. All the points are too low except 1998. Eg 2005 actually is higher than 1998. You also omit the last 3 years all of which are high.

[SteveWrathall]

@drkstrong A more up to date comparison on pielkeclimatesci(dot)wordpress­(dot)com (search Hansen 1988) shows temperatures continuing to undershoot even Hansen's low predictions. And you are basically saying we should disregard the failure if hansen's breathless 1988 testimony because the latest models are "better". Yeah, until they've been given enough time to fail as well. Then you'll be making excuses for them, and producing new ones. This is the tactic of predictors of the rapture.

[drkstrong]

@SteveWrathall In 1988 weather preiction models were very crude and inaccurate you were luck to get the weather right 24 hours ahead of time. They are much improved today with an acceptible accuracy of up to 3 days. So you are saying that we should disreguard weaher forecasts today because they were inaccurate in 22 years ago? That is false logic.

[SteveWrathall]

@drkstrong We're talking climate, not weather.

[drkstrong]

@SteveWrathall No, the important point there is that models should not be disregarded now because earlier versions of them were less accurate. The weather was an illustration of that point.

[TheSailer99]

You are clearly more interested in ranting and raving than looking at the evidence. Go to the NASA web site and put in Climate change. Or go to the Met Office UK or NOAA.

Look at science not idiots on You Tube.

We all survive on the green stuff that grows in fields and although humans can live in a wide range of temperatures plants can not. When plants start to die, we will to.

The 'normal' level of CO2 on earth is around 260 PPM and we are now at 390 and rising. Work it out yourself.

[TheSailer99]

At +3C we all die. I call that worse.

[SteveWrathall]

@TheSailer99 Firstly, there is no evidence that the earth is warming +3 deg C/ century. There has been no statistically significant warming for the last 15 years. Secondly even if such a thing were to eventuate, even the hottest areas would not become uninhabitable, and there would be a huge increase to the temperate growing seasons.

[drkstrong]

@SteveWrathall There is statistically significant warming at the 92% level (that means you have 1 chance of being right and 11 chances of being wrong. 15 years is also too short a time to look for such a trend. There has been no statitically significant warming or cooling in any 15 year period since 1850. Yet the warming trend over the last 50 years is 99.999% significant.

[dbrotman]

@SteveWrathall Steve, did you look at the 1,100 year graph of surface temperature at the epa.gov site? The change in rate is pretty easy to identify beginning at year 1900, which coincides with the beginning of the industrial revolution. That data gives scientists a high level of confidence that the earth is warming faster over the last century than any time in the last 400 years. So you see, Steve, statistical trends are developed using data collected over longer time periods.

[Baronstone]

@dbrotman You're an idiot! The data shows that the warming trend actually begain around 1850. Which was during the FIRST industrial revolution, the one where WATER wheels did all the work. I hope you're not trying to claim that water wheels produced CO2!

The fact is that the world is still in an ice age. We are in an interglacial period, the average global temp is 14.2 C and at the height of the ice age the global temps were 12 C. Thats a whole 2.2 degrees difference and below the high of 22 C!

[TheSailer99]

James Hansen is only one of thousands of scientists who are working on climate change. Governments around the world are spending millions trying to research what is going on and all the results show that it is getting worse. The earth has warmed .8C according to NOAA and many other government agencies. look it up yourself.

Carbon trading is not a good system but it is a world wide attempt to reduce carbon emissions, In New Zealand we should start by shutting Huntley and replace it with hydro.

[SteveWrathall]

@TheSailer99 "all the results show that it is getting worse"?? All the results?? So the fact that this moderate 0.8 deg C rise over a century has coincided with a huge increase in food production, life expectance & population with a reduction in disease through access to cheap, reliable energy and the prosperity it brings, means things are getting "worse"?

[cowboyx1970]

OMG the graph you use shows the trend going up you idiot, you're too stupid to be a hack

[SteveWrathall]

@cowboyx1970 Yes, going up at a rate that is not unprecedented, and not alarming. The leading alarmists admit in the climategate emails that the catastrophic warming they have predicted is nowhere to be found ("Where the heck is the warming?")

[cowboyx1970]

@SteveWrathall should the science stop now that the predictions didn't come true? Where do you contend the error is?

[SteveWrathall]

@cowboyx1970 The science stop? I'd be happy if the science started. Because what the leading climate alarmists have been doing isn't science. Fudging data, refusing to divulge methodology, blacklisting critics and unsympathetic editors, using "tricks' to "hide declines" and cherry-picking data to "get rid of the Mediaeval Warm Period".

[cowboyx1970]

@SteveWrathall I figured as much, you're a hack.

[SteveWrathall]

@cowboyx1970 Please specify which of the above skullduggery by warmists you deny happened.

[cowboyx1970]

@SteveWrathall The official investigations have failed to turn up even the smallest amount of malfeasance. You'll have to do better than out of context and private, flippant comments (in emails of all things) to prove wrong doing in predictions made 20 years ago. The failure to predict doesn't invalidate science. Your non sequiturs are compounding, you should be on Fox.

[Tapecutter59]

My god you're right! If I tilt my head to the left on a 30deg angle the upward trend disappears.

You should publish this marvelous discovery in a science journal and teach those ignorant scientists how to read a graph.

[SteveWrathall]

No need. The upward trend disappeared in 1998. ("Where the hell is the warming?" - Climategate email)

[Tapecutter59]

Yeah right, cherry pick the high point of a curve and then draw a line to any other point further along tha curve and it will always show a negative slope.

Your video (and reply) shows a complete lack of knowledge of statistical inference and your obsession with the politics explains why you swallow the propoganda of the heartland institute and similar anti-science lobby groups.

We have a serious problem, if you're interested in politics then come up with a serious political solution.

[SteveWrathall]

@Tapecutter59 The appropriate solution to a non-problem is to do nothing.

[Tapecutter59]

What secret knowlege do you have that every reputable scientific institution on the planet doesn't know about?

Where do you get your misinformation from? Does it just pop into your head?

[SteveWrathall]

@Tapecutter59 This argument from authority is getting more threadbare by the day. Which "reputable scientific institutions" are you referring to? The IPCC? U. of East Anglia? What do I know that they don't? Aparrently that it's not OK to fudge data, refuse official information requests, blacklist and boycott journals who won't toe the alarmist line, use "tricks" to hide declines, and fantasise about giving skeptics the bash.

[Tapecutter59]

Argument from authority is aruging because someone "said so". You have obviously never heard of "the republic of science".

By denying the problem you are also denying a large part of modern day physics that can be traced back to Fourier in 1824.

Fourier PREDICTED the properties of CO2 using spectral analysis and came up with the following formula...

RF = 5.35*ln(C2/C1) = 3.71 W/M^2 for a doubling of CO2.

Faraday confirmed that prediction in the 1850's by expermental observation.

..cont....

[Tapecutter59]

...cont....

That 1.4degC will not go away, however there maybe other -ve feedbacks or forcings that will mask it. To work out those things you have to put the pysics into a supercomputer via a finite element model.

Those models suggest an additional 1.5degC of warming, more if Asia stops pumping areosols into the atmosphere.

...cont...

[Tapecutter59]

..cont...

I'm now finished with my charity work here, feel free to continue making a public fool of yourself.

[OvoidCranium]

Faradays curve fitting caused him to mistake an exponential asymptote for a log curve it's easy to do because they look similar. Where it fails is that the system cannot get hotter than the source will allow (until thermal equilibrium is reached) there is no provision for this in the log which can rise ad infinitum.

[Tapecutter59]

There is no provision for time dialation in Newtons laws, this does not mean they are wrong. As I have said to you elsewhere the difference between your QM calculation (which btw you have not shown) is less than 0.01degC for tropospheric pressures.

Are you being paid to stalk me or is it just a hobby?

[OvoidCranium]

"There is no provision for time dialation in Newtons laws, this does not mean they are wrong"

No it doesn't but you are comparing apples and oranges with the Lorenz transforms they tend towards the Newtons laws as they system approaches zero speed and mass IOW it approaches a limit. The log relationship does not it generates a diverging series where proper application of Beer Lambert does not.

"Are you being paid to stalk me or is it just a hobby?"

Grow up.

[duck24x]

911 Truthers are one of the few groups with whose conclusions I weakly disagree, yet whom I vigorously defend for their courage and intelligence. They deserve more of a voice.

Not like a bunch of fuckhead creationists or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deniers who have had centuries/decades (resp.) backing by rich powerful conservative religions or corporations.

Fact: there exists far more proof GW Bush caused 911 than AGW does NOT exist.

[oomblikkies]

SteveWrathall - every point you make is true, but every person should know his/her limitations. Next time please use someone with a powerful voice and a studio to do a proper presentation. Please consider this as constructive criticism. Your stuff is worth a proper presentation. Good luck.

[lessya1]

What nonsense is this fellow talking about? 2009 is the fifth warmest year on record and this past decade has been the warmest decade on record.

Sealevel rise, though still measured in millimiters, is accellerating.

Global warming is alive and well and dnagerous. But do not let me disturb your smug complacency, for you might as well feel comfortable. the worst won't happen in your lifetime. It's only the children we need to worry about.

[SteveWrathall]

Temperature records began during the Little Ice Age. Hardly surprising that there has been a slight (0.8 deg C) rise over the last 150 years. This in no way that this is compatible with the catastrophic warming scenarios that are being used to bully us into reducing our living standards.

Sea level rise is 2-3 mm/year and has been for the last 8000 years. There is no evidence that this is increasing. Yet the Al Gore predictions of metres this century require tenfold increases.

[MrOllyK]

Fact: The climate has always changed and always will.

Fact: Temperature change PRECEDES CO2 level change by average 800 years.

Fact: 1000 years ago temp was much higher than today without man's influence.

Fact: The IPCC uses graphs starting only 200 years ago from the end of the little ice age to assert AGW.

Fact:  REAL science is being stifled by the IPCC and Govt.

Fact: Cooling is worse as grain doesn't grow in ice.

Fact: We've been cooling for the last 9 years!

[FreeAgain2]

IPCC should recant as well.

[FreeAgain2]

Why does this simple "HANSEN FAILURE" not sink him?

HANSEN should recant.

[SteveWrathall]

The same reason faith healers continue to attract suckers (and their money) despite their clients dying at the same rate as anyone else. Human gullibility is an inexhaustable resource. Pity we can't refine it and run our cars on it.

[gufpott]

Good points again Steve. And happy new year to you - at least 11 years of no global warming and counting.

In many ways, it is sad to have to say that Hansen's predictions are wrong. A cold future will be much worse than a warm future.

But political and environmental ideology must not be allowed to distort the scientific quest for facts.

We once had Lysenkoism, and that was once too many.

[deiloh]

The graph is a bit of microscoping don't you think? The trend of the last hundred years may be below the predictions made by James Hansen but how does that disprove global warming if the trend is still climbing ever higher? James Hansen was not the only scientist in the 1980s, he was one of the more extreme.

[SteveWrathall]

I think you mean the last 20 years(don't think JH was alive 100 years ago).

The question is not whether moderate warming has occurred. It is whether it matches the catastrophic predictions. It does not.

[Scottar50]

Such apologetics, You missed the Point that Hansen predicted over 0.5 degree rise in temperature since 98 if CO2 continued to increase. Well Steve pointed out that cooling has happened instead.

Hansen has also predicted meters in sea level rise when it's been mm in rise over the course of 2 centuries.

As Steve said, Hansen is more of a huckster then scientist.

[Merany1]

I lived in New Zealand for almost a year. Now I am in Sweden. I would rather die in New Zealand than live in Sweden. It is so beautiful over there.

[SteveWrathall]

Is Sweden still going to get rid of its nuclear power? That would be a really dumb idea

[Merany1]

You would have a hard time finding a Swede that doubts the realities of AGW. But this is a characteristic of Swedish society. Social engineering is a very powerful science here. The ability to think outside the box does not really exist. In 1921 Sweden became the first country in the whole world to establish a state Eugenics institute but mention this to a Swede they will have no idea what you are talking about. Now Sweden is attempting to be world leaders again to better humanity through AGW.

[SteveWrathall]

You'd think that Swedes would be in favour of GW. Man-made or not. What a pity there's been none since 1998.

[hikeskool]

I heart the uneducated and fickle.