Climate Change

Global Warming Prediction 30 Years Later: How Is It Faring?

If you preach to choir, at least try to be fair in your sermon.

|

TempTrendsMocho1Dreamstime
Mocho 1/Dreamstime

The skeptical folks over at Real Science are taking a stroll down memory lane to see how climatologist James Hansen's famous 1986 predictions about future global temperature trends have panned out 30 years later. As evidence, the Real Science shows a couple of quotations from a June 12 Associated Press story which cites Hansen as predicting in testimony before a U.S. Senate committee that global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, "which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years." Real Science notes that Earth warmed by only about 0.2 degrees Celsius between June 1986 and June 2006. Off by a factor of ten!

But is that the whole story? I dove into the WABAC Machine known as Nexis and dredged up a couple of other news reports recounting Hansen's testimony. A longer June 1986 UPI story reported, "Unless steps are taken to control the problem, temperatures in the United States in the next decade will range from 0.5 degrees Celsius to 2 degrees higher than they were in 1958, said James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies." That's a much bigger range than between 1986 and 2006.

So how did the average U.S. temperature change in the 50 years after 1958? According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program report in 2009, "U.S. average temperature has risen more than 2ºF over the past 50 years." Two degrees Fahrenheit is just over 1.1 degrees Celsius, which is within the spread of increased temperatures predicted by Hansen. With regard to global average temperatures, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 noted that "the rate of warming averaged over the last 50 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years." That implies an overall increase between 1958 and 2006 of 0.65 degree Celsius—at the low end of Hansen's predictions. The University of Alabama at Huntsville's satellite temperature data series (since 1979) is increasing at 0.12 degree Celsius per decade which, if run back backwards, implies a five decade global temperature increase of 0.6 degree Celsius; again, at the low end of Hansen's projections.

First, it does no good for the antagonists in the scientific debate over man-made climate change to mischaracterize the views of their opponents. On the other hand, the lower rate of temperature increase suggests that most computer climate models relied upon by Hansen are running far too hot, and future temperature increases may not portend catastrophic changes by the end of this century.

NEXT: Tennessee Taxpayers Forced to Keep Bankrolling Failed Television Show

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. On the other hand, the lower rate of temperature increase suggests that most computer climate models relied upon by Hansen are running far too hot, and future temperature increases may not portend catastrophic changes by the end of this century.

    BLASPHEMY!

    1. FLATEARTHSCIENCEDENIER!!!!

    2. The answer, of course, is to kill all capitalists.

      After all, 500 years from now, things could change. We don’t need any more progress or improvements in the standards of living for poor people. We simply need more dead people in developing economies and all business owners to be burned alive.

      That should fix it.

      1. … and all business owners to be burned alive.

        It is clear that you not only misunderstand the science here timbo, but that you want to add fuel to the fire, as burning, by its very nature, increases temperatures.

        Sheesh.

        1. I’m a Marxist. I cannot put together rational forethought. I get a pass because I meant well.

          I drive a smart car and I use ten gallons of water washing out my recyclable yogurt cups. What do you do? I’ll bet you use paper towels instead of running your dryer to re-use cloths towels.

          1. What do you do? I’ll bet you use paper towels instead of running your dryer to re-use cloths towels.

            I hang dry my cloth towels, in addition to the clothes I wash, smarty pantsuit internet person.

            However, I’ll not judge you any longer, since you are obviously a caring person and meant well. That is ultimately what is important.

            *adds timbo to list of good-thinking persons*

            1. Your benevolence humbles me. Time to get back to knitting my Che sweater.

              If only he were alive to rationally approach this pending exploitation of the bourgeois.

          2. I lay down the longest, widest carbon footprint I can afford. I realize I can’t compete with that done by Hussein, Michelle, Hillary, Algore, SanFranNan, Uncle Joe, and the rest of the frauds but I am doing pretty well I must say.

  2. I’m waiting to hear how “climate science” includes ignoring this sort of evidence.

  3. Careful picking of start points can make the data sing anyone’s tune.

        1. *Applauds quietly*

  4. But what does Tim Egan think?

    1. I’ll check and see how he’s doing on the fainting couch.

  5. Wabac

    I believe you meant Wayback, Ron.

    1. Have you considered that Wayback might self-identify as Wabac, and Ron is merely opting to respect its choice?

    2. T: The acronym for Mr. Peabody’s Wormhole Activating and Bridging Automatic Computer is WABAC, pronounced “wayback.” I will now capitalize in the article.

      1. As a government-certified Millennial I appreciate this history lesson.

        1. ^A millenial?! Quick, somebody poll him!!!!1!1!!

      2. Dammit! Sorry.

    3. Mr. Peabody is pissed.

      1. Leave Tonio alone! That show was on before he was born! Leave him alone!

        1. Can we start addressing him as Sherman?

          1. Eh. It use to be a free country.

          2. Can we start addressing him as Sherman?

            I’m not sure that quite fits, as I understand that Tonio is still welcome in Atlanta.

            1. +1 March to the Sea. Heh.

        2. Thanks, FH, but I’m that old. While some of the shows may have been produced before I was born, the series was in heavy replay during my early childhood.

  6. How much have we warmed since Saturday?

    1. Negative something.

  7. I’d like to comment on this, but I died during the Great Famine of ’86.

    1. You died before I was born, and yet here we are talking to each other.

      1. Ehrlich ain’t just a character on Silicon Valley.

      2. He’s communicating by way of a magical, WABAC mail box at his lake house.

        1. Lake house?

          1. A shitty Sandra Bullock movie. Pay me no mind.

            1. My spirit isn’t that materially successful.

  8. Sounds like we should lock up that Hansen guy for causing panic and encouraging governments to piss away scarce tax dollars on government boondoggles and crony subsidies.

    He can share a cell with that hockey stick guy.

    1. But at least we’re talking about it, right?

  9. Ron, have you considered doing one of those Netflix documentaries on the End of Doom? Look how much press Blackfish got.

    1. I presume that the chances of Netflix publishing that documentary or it getting a lot of press is directly related to how well it fits the current progressive zeitgeist. Just acknowledging AGW isn’t nearly enough for them, you must also bend the knee to their retarded progressive solutions.

      1. People don’t want to hear his clear-eyed, reasoned optimism.

        1. I disagree. I think people would like to hear some positive news.

        2. I also I want to see some of these doomsdayers caught looking like fools on camera.

      2. By ‘bend the knee’ I assume you mean ‘pay up’.

      3. … you must also bend the knee to their retarded progressive solutions.

        The “progressive solutions” is the real purpose of AGW. But you knew that, I suppose.

    2. He should have taken the deal Brienne worked out for him.

      1. Is this a GOT reference? Cuz I’m kind of over that show.

        1. You’re missing out on all the awesome GRRL POWER!!1!!!! which seems to be the theme his year. With the possible exception of the Hound’s re-entry.

            1. Ha! Johnz Law.

              1. It’s a cruel mistress, yar.

            1. *spoiler alert!

              Natalie Dormer is still sexy.

              1. according to google, she has a slightly derpy face.

                1. Wow! Yeah, Google’s top page image results wasn’t very kind to her.

              2. I bought the forrest just so I can look at two of her.

              3. I used to date her sister, Attic Dormer.

  10. I have no idea how much it has actually warmed in the past or will warm in the future, all I know is that the only solution to this or any other problem is massive government intervention!!

    /progderp

  11. As evidence, the Real Science shows a couple of quotations from a June 12 Associated Press story which cites Hansen as predicting in testimony before a U.S. Senate committee that global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, “which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.” Real Science notes that Earth warmed by only about 0.2 degrees Celsius between June 1986 and June 2006. Off by a factor of ten!

    So did he or did he not say that? If he did, what’s the point of the rest of the article?

    A longer June 1986 UPI story reported, “Unless steps are taken to control the problem, temperatures in the United States in the next decade will range from 0.5 degrees Celsius to 2 degrees higher than they were in 1958

    This is a statement separate from above, dealing with different range AND a different location (US vs global). Accuracy of that statement is unrelated to the accuracy of the previous statement.

    So how did the average U.S. temperature change in the 50 years after 1958?

    This question has nothing to do with previous two statements. US temperature to look for is the change in 40 years after 1958 (i.e. ‘next decade’ from date of testimony in 1986). Temperatures to look for in 50 year range are the global ones.

    1. The University of Alabama at Huntsville’s satellite temperature data series (since 1979) is increasing at 0.12 degree Celsius per decade which, if run back backwards, implies a five decade global temperature increase of 0.6 degree Celsius; again, at the low end of Hansen’s projections.

      Or, dealing with four decades in question, 0.48 degrees Celsius, which is below even his lower bound?

    2. Not even that. 58 to 96 is only 38 years, not 40, much less 50.

      Math is hard.

      1. Bailey needs to entirely rewrite his article. Or go shopping with Barbie.

        1. All: 2006 – 1958 = 48 or rounded to 5 decades.

          1. Ron – the section you quoted was from the longer UPI story in 1986 said the temps in the “US” would be 0.5-2 degrees higher than 1958 “in the next decade”, presumably the decade from 1986 to 1996 (to be generous). That would mean the temperature would have to be 0.5 degrees higher by 1996, not 2006.

            So the prediction would have to be for the difference in the roughly 4 decades from 1958 to 1996. That probably still falls within the values for the US report, and just barely for the IPCC report (4 * 0.13), but just outside for the UA-H data (4 * 0.12). And it’s not clear from your article if the IPCC data and the UA-H data are global or US values. They would appear to be global values since they aren’t stated to be just US values. It’s not necessarily invalid to use that, but it’s probably not valid to judge a US only prediction based on global values.

            1. 3.8*.13=.494 so still misses out.

              1. Not if you go by significant digits.

    3. Thought Ron killed his own point by speeding past the congressional prediction. Fortune tellers are bound to get one prophecy right with enough attempts. The prediction made in front of congress is the one to hold him to since it’s the one most likely to influence governments use of force.

      1. He killed his point by getting the math wrong and, apparently, refusing to correct it.

        Maybe he went to lunch. I will check back after mine.

        1. r: Math wrong? Again 2006 – 1958 = 48 years or rounded to 5 decades x 0.13 = 0.65 degrees Celsius.

          1. Again, the range from 1958 ends in 1996. US temperatures are to increase by 0.5 to 2 degrees in the “next decade” as per 1986 testimony.

            2006 refers to range from 1986 to 2006 and applies to global temperature. Year 1958 is not relevant to that range.

            1. PZ & All: Y’all have spurred me to go looking for the actual 1986 testimony and I finally found it. It turns out that journalistic efforts at concision confused matters. I will be doing an update to this post, but thought I would cite Hansen’s actual testimony here. Interestingly, his worst case scenario assumed climate sensitivity of 4 degrees Celsius.

              Anyway here’s some actual quotations: “This map shows global warming in the 1990’s as compared to 1958. The scale of warming is shown on the left-hand side. You can see that the warming in most of the United States is about 1/2 degrees C to 1 degree C, the patched green color.” (p.20).

              1. More 1986 Hansen testimony:

                “Now, if we go a little further into the future, the new viewgraph shows the decade from 2010 to 2030; that is 30 years from now. … In the region of the United States, the warming 30 years from now is about 1 1/2 degrees C, which is about 3 F.” p. 20

                “You can see from the upper part of the figure from 1958, when the simulations began, until the present, any trends in the real world or the model are still small compared to the natural variability of the temperature averaged over a season. … But the exciting thing is that by the 1990’s the expected warming rises above the noise level. In fact, the model shows that in 20 years, the global warming should reach about 1 degree C, which would be the warmest the Earth has been in the last 100,000 years.” p.21

                1. Grrr. “the decade from 2010 to 2020”

                  1. Shouldny you have read the actual testimony BEFORE writing the article? Would have saved us all a lot of trouble.

                    1. r: Yeah. 20/20 hindsight. Trusting damned journalists! What was I thinking! 🙂

                      Finding the testimony was not all that easy either – no interwebs in 1986.

                    2. There is a famous saying stolen for a movie:

                      Never go against robc with math on the line.

                      I make lots of mistakes, but math is not usually one of them.

                      Also, shouldnt the reason fact checker have caught the error?

                    3. Busy hiding his nuts in the tree.

                    4. r: Not sure what you think my math “error” was. Reading through the Nexis stories, I interpreted Hansen as saying that temperatures rise by 1/2 to 2 degrees C between 1958 and 2006 – that’s a 48 years span, or as rounded, 5 decades.

                      It turns out that the AP and UPI reports kind of garbled it, and Hansen was using model runs starting in 1958 to project temperature increases for up to 30 years after 1986 (see quotations above). 1958 was the starting year because that’s when reliable measurements of atmospheric CO2 began.

                      So reading “error” maybe; math not so much.

                2. Hansen: “But the exciting thing is that by the 1990’s the expected warming rises above the noise level. ”

                  BS. WTF noise level is he talking about? Earths temp has been rising since the 1700’s, sometimes rather rapidly. Without accurate understanding of the baseline – and the mechanisms that influence it – it’s all speculation.

                  AGW: BS then, BS now.

              2. I will be doing an update to this post, but thought I would cite Hansen’s actual testimony here.

                Probably too late for you to see, Ron, but much appreciated. Thank you for engaging the Ostrogoth horde in the comments!
                Remember: if I didn’t care about your articles, I wouldn’t be commenting on the content thereof (I call it the Dalmia Principle).

      2. Fortune tellers are bound to get one prophecy right with enough attempts.

        Ravi Batra has predicted nine of the last 2 recessions.

      3. “Fortune tellers are bound to get one prophecy right with enough attempts.”

        Like the obama administration predicting in 2010 that we would see the “summer of recovery.” And in 2011. And in 2012. And…

  12. So I had an ice sculpture done for a wedding anniversary about a decade ago…and it has since melted!

    Warming proved!

    1. Ice sculpture? Well look at you, 1%er!

      1. Exactly. The greed you display in wasting a resource for your capitalist indulgences.

        Someday when everyone must share the same refrigerator, car, boat, A/C, light bulb, and television, we can achieve the utopia that these deniers will continue to rob from us.

        1. dam, gotta get a ZiL

      2. Plus getting married in the dark ages of marriage, when only straight people had the right and gays couldn’t force bakers or pizzerias to cater the event. Straight up cisnormative privilege.

        1. cisheteronormative privilege, which is even worse. Probably exercising some male privilege in there, to boot!

      3. Pl?ya, I responded to your park question in the federalism article.

        1. Thanks.

          Although, I might get some waterparking in next week.

  13. Try naming one ‘chicken little’ doomsday ‘fact that has been true since ‘Silent Spring’ was written.Try reading Dixie Lee Ray’s books Ron.She was so much smarter than the greens,and you.

    1. Silent spring caused the deaths of thousands of Africans by banning DDT. Rachel was a genocidal maniac turns out.

      1. DDT wasn’t banned universally for disease control and I don’t believe that Carson favored a ban for such purposes.

        I think people often overstate the benefits of more DDT use. If it had continued to be used, mosquitos would have become resistant to it, as has happened in India and other places that continue to use it a lot.

        Of course, it should be used where and when it is effective to save lives and many countries have banned it, which is foolish. The ban on agricultural use (whether or not that is acceptable from a libertarian perspective) probably has extended it’s usefulness for disease control.

        1. Zeb|6.14.16 @ 12:51PM|#
          “…I think people often overstate the benefits of more DDT use. If it had continued to be used, mosquitos would have become resistant to it, as has happened in India and other places that continue to use it a lot.”

          Yeah, it would have become less valuable AFTER several million lives were saved. What a pile of horse pucky.

          1. I’m not approving of the demonization of DDT. Just saying, it’s not as simple as “Rachel Carson killed everybody”. And mosquitoes were already becoming resistant when the restrictions went into effect, so it’s hard to say just how many more people it might have saved. But as I said, if it can be used effectively, it should be.

      2. As & t: See my article DDT, Eggshells and Me. Also take a look at Chapter 4 in The End of Doom; lots of info on DDT, Carson and chemophobia there.

    2. Here’s one, smart guy. What do you say to this? Huh?

      http://www.agoracosmopolitan.c…..01291.html

      1. Linky no worky.

  14. “Unless steps are taken to control the problem, temperatures in the United States in the next decade will range from 0.5 degrees Celsius to 2 degrees higher than they were in 1958, said James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”

    Hansen said in 1986 “in the next decade” – i.e., by 1996. You then compared the temperature in 1958 to the temperature in 2009, i.e., the next two decades. Not quite the same thing, is it? And beyond that, and possibly more important, if you’re comparing what Hansen said in 1986 regarding the temperature rise between 1958 and some later date, make sure to check what the temperature in 1958 was in 1986. Is the recorded temperature in 1958 the same now as it was in 1986 and in 2009? Some of these people have a nasty habit of going back and changing the historical record. It’s not unbelievable that the recorded temperature in 1958 was 70 degrees, in 1986 it was 70 degrees, in 2009 it was 70 degrees – but now they’ve decided that the recorded temperature in 1958 should have been 66 degrees and in 1986 the recorded temperature should have been 67 1/2 degrees, and – holy crap – we’re heating up at an accelerating rate!!!

    1. If these models worked, they would work running backwards just as well as they do running forwards. You therefore should be able to take today’s temperature and using the model successfully calculate the temperature 20 or 30 years ago or any other year for which there are good records. They don’t to do that, however. The answer seems to be to deem the measurements wrong and change them to conform to the model.

      They just fucking love SCIENCE!! I guess.

      1. If these models worked, they would work running backwards just as well as they do running forwards.

        So, I gather that they didn’t teach basic thermodynamics at Dr. Nick’s “I Can’t Believe It’s A Law School.”

        1. I gather you are an idiot Mary, but everyone already knew that. The laws of entropy, which I assume is what you are getting at, in no way prevent a mathematical model from modeling both future and past events.

          Aren’t a lot of mentally ill people also smart? Damn do you kill that stereotype.

          1. Ignorance of science is no excuse, John. You’ll look far less stupid if you stick to what you know, like wasting taxpayer money surfing the internet at work.

            1. Cool Story Mary.

              1. Because the concepts behind reversibility are kinda tough for a mildly retarded GS-12, I’ll try to give you a simple example. There’s a golf ball rolling on the greed toward the hole. At some instant t1, you can specify its momentum and position (i.e., its state). You can then predict its trajectory into the hole when it arrives at t2.

                Now, consider the opposite. At time t2, the position is whatever the coordinates are of the hole. The momentum is zero. What was the trajectory it took to get into its state at t2? Unless you’re even more retarded than I thought, you can see that there’s an infinity of trajectories that result in the state at t2.

                1. green, not greed. Libertypo.

                2. “The momentum is zero. ”

                  Uh, the ball is moving, momentum is not zero.

                  What were you saying about understanding science?

      2. That’s actually exactly what they do with domestic temperature recording stations run by NOAA. They make ‘adjustments’ using ‘science’ to account for environmental ‘variations’ in the areas surrounding their temperature recording stations. They’re not wrong in doing that necessarily, but it’s a guesstimate nothing more.

        That being said, for reason they’re also shutting down rural stations that record cooler temperatures while leaving urban ‘heat islands’ running.

        Taken in the aggregate, this is a recipe that can only lead to hotter predicted temperatures than what occur, which is exactly what happens. Not to say the world isn’t getting warmer, but rather is it our fault and is it a catastrophe that can even be prevented?

        Since the Sun itself can not be magically transmogrified with human technology, if something goes ‘wrong’ we’re going to become Mars and there isn’t a damn thing we can do about it.

        1. There is nothing wrong with adjusting measurements if you have solid reasons to do so. As you point out, confirmation bias is not one of those solid reasons.

          1. No, there is something wrong with adjusting measurements. Specifically, it’s because there is no way to be certain you’ve adjusted them comparably with what would have been recorded if the environment surrounding your temperature recording station hadn’t changed.

            Essentially, they are trying to hold the temperature recording stations static to get a solid background temperature reading. Which, at face value, is impossible so they try to get ‘close’.

            As the saying goes, ‘close only counts in horseshoes and climate science’.

            This doesn’t delve far into the realm of what NOAA itself is doing with closing rural stations and averaging estimates derived from ‘heat island’ urban centers though, that’s just gross and flagrant abuse of science and tantamount to making shit up. People have known about the heat island effect since ‘urban’ has existed, and it’s insane to use data from them at all.

  15. It is not so much that the predictions are wrong it is that the people who made them seem to be making no effort to explain why the predictions are wrong or any attempt to make their models today any better.

    On the other hand, the lower rate of temperature increase suggests that most computer climate models relied upon by Hansen are running far too hot, and future temperature increases may not portend catastrophic changes by the end of this century.

    No Ron, it doesn’t imply that the models are running to hot. It proves the models are running too hot. There is no implication about it. It is fact. What it implies is that the models are wrong. And what it doesn’t rule out is that the theory is wrong. Are the models running too hot because Hansen hasn’t figured out all of the vagaries of a correct theory? Maybe. But it is also possible that the models are wrong because the underlying theory that man made Co2 is warming the planet is wrong. Until you fix the models and get ones that do predict future temperatures and thus understand why these models are wrong, there is no way to say for sure whether it is a bad model or just a bad theory.

    Come on Ron, just be honest and go where the reasoning takes you. Stop trying to put lipstick on this pig.

    1. There is no financial incentive to admit error, only there is to double down.

      1. That is sadly true throughout science. No one ever got a grant on the promise to disprove whatever the prevailing theory is. In fact, dissent from the “consensus” is usually a good way to end your career. See the English scientist who in the 1960s said that the connection between fat and obesity was bunk and was called a “shill for big meat” and run out of his field for the sin of being right.

    2. No Ron, it doesn’t imply that the models are running to hot. It proves the models are running too hot.

      Implication is a way of proving something. If X implies Y, and X is true, then Y is true.

      1. Popularity: Top 20% of words
        Simple Definition of imply
        : to express (something) in an indirect way : to suggest (something) without saying or showing it plainly
        : to include or involve (something) as a natural or necessary part or result

        The fact that the actual temperatures are lower than the model predicted doesn’t suggest that the models are running hot. It proves that they are running hot. Imply is just the wrong word here.

        1. The second definition is what I said. Though now that I look, it appears Ron did say “suggests”, not “implies”. So you are right. He should have said that it demonstrates that the models have got something wrong or missed some variable.

  16. Threadjack Poll:

    So it looks like the shooter’s wife knew about the attacks well in advance, but did nothing to stop him. She even drove him to buy the guns.

    What’s the appropriate punishment?

    1. Whatever the punishment for murder is in Florida, which I think is still the chair. If what you are saying is true, she was a part of the conspiracy and is just as legally guilty as he is. I would vote for death in a heartbeat if I were on that jury.

    2. What’s the appropriate punishment?

      My guess is that the laws and sentences regarding conspiracy and accessory are codified. This should be easy to look up (but I won’t).

      1. The punishment for conspiracy is the same as the underlying crime. If what Playa is saying is true, she is not an accessory. She is a co conspirator. An accessory is when you promote or instigate the crime but then leave the conspiracy before the crime is committed or when you help conceal a crime after it has been committed. She doesn’t seem to have left the conspiracy here. She didn’t call the cops or do anything to stop him. She is a co-conspirator.

    3. Buried up the the neck and stoned by the community.

    4. Nothing.

    5. 50 counts of first degree murder.

      Death penalty given Florida.

    6. You got a link?

      1. Hmm, I got an alert from Fox News on my ‘phone, but nothing on their website.

        1. Yeah, sounds pretty bad.

  17. We must stop enjoying these warm meals.
    Warms showers are tantamount to eating babies.
    We must mutate into cold blooded beings to lessen our heating demand.
    We have to get rid of all of these people who want to be comfortable. They are the scourge of the earth.

  18. It took Bailey 5 mins to comment that he was fixing WABAC. It has now beem 20 mins since PZ pointing out the major math error and no comments about retraction yet.

    Interesting priorities there Ron.

  19. The question I would like to know is how certain are we of the global temperature over say, the last 250 years, and are we certain enough of knowing that temperature within .01Deg celsius?

    Otherwise a .6 deg C change in the last four decades is pretty much meaningless in terms of global climate change over time. For instance look at the medieval warming period- “Lloyd D. Keigwin’s 1996 study of radiocarbon-dated box core data from marine sediments in the Sargasso Sea found that the sea surface temperature there was approximately 1 ?C (1.8 ?F) cooler approximately 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and approximately 1 ?C warmer 1000 years ago”.

    1. I would like to know that as well. Further, what is the “global temperature”, how is it measured and how is it meaningful? They never seem to explain or even thing about that.

      1. Divining temperatures from tree rings and tea leaves is much more scientific than deriving them from satellites.

        1. Until the advent of satellites, it is questionable that we could even measure global temperature with any accuracy. But somehow, we are supposed to believe these guys when they tell us recent warming is unprecedented and out of the range of any natural variation.

          1. If you listen closely, you’ll hear things like ‘unprecedented in (insert scary huge, but historically tiny number) years’ which almost invariably lines up against another period of history where that cherry picked range is shown to be completely bullshit cherry picking. If you call out a true believer enough times with facts or questions, the discussion is shut down and you are told to get in line ‘or else’, and it’s intimated that expressing your opinion should be illegal.

            When you can’t win in the realm of idea’s, use the government to shut up, kill, or imprison those who disagree. Because you, sir, are incapable of being wrong!

  20. Ughh will this Global warming thing hurry up I’m sitting on acres of land here in Kansas just waiting to cash in on it when it becomes beach front property.

    1. Did Lex Luther teach you nothing?

      1. He just wanted to sink California I’m going to need a bigger plan. If somehow I could clone Leonardo Dicaprio and his private jets…

  21. So are we all still going to die hungry and from heat prostration?

    1. No, mass cannibalism sets in first.

  22. Poor Ron, it’s seems like everyone really hates you and thinks you’re a moron except when they think you’re brilliant.

    1. When is that?

      1. You’re not allowed to answer a question with a question.

        1. I am unaware that people here ever think Bailey is brilliant.

          1. Then you don’t read enough of the comments on his posts. I expected better of you.

    2. I think Ron is sitting in his evil lair plotting new diabolical schemes to rule the world.

      1. Lex Luthor taught you something.

      2. He certainly is one of the master baiters around here.

    3. Well, I like Ron.

    4. I don’t always agree with Ron but he strikes me as a guy that’s done a lot of research on the topic so I try to keep an open mind.

      It’s clear he reads the comments, so perhaps he’s really a masochist at heart and this is his way to get his fix? ^_-

  23. Ron,

    38 minutes.

    Which is the number of years between 1996 and 1958.

    1. Maybe he doesn’t spend all day scanning the comments.

      1. He’s missing out

      2. He does. He finally responded. Sorta.

  24. And therefore we should … ?

    1. Roast the climate scientists on a bonfire.

    2. In his book he says the solution to global warming is economic growth. Rich countries pollute less than poor countries. Also, if warming is not related to human activity, rich people are in a better position to adapt than poor people, so again the solution is economic growth.

      1. Seems to work better than central planning everywhere it’s been tried!
        But it doesn’t keep dim-bulb vote-getters employed, so it must be mistaken…
        Maybe we should find a system that measures the worth of people by how they increase the wealth of mankind in general!
        Naah, too many dimbulbs would be living on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

  25. I was talking last week with a guy from University of Maryland who gave a really good talk on climate change. He was very frank that the models were running hot. He also said his group had been working on a new model that they think handles ocean cycles better and that can match the observed data. He also was very enthusiastic that the way to solve climate change problems is through entrepreneurship and the profit motive.

    But, I also asked what his models with a lower rate of warming implied for some of the more dire predictions. He said that he thought a lower rate of warming would buy time, but that if current trends continued then coastal flooding was going to become a real problem at some point. He also said that the Greenland ice sheet is melting faster than expected because early predictions modeled it as a solid block of ice, and it turns out that a lot of the cap is actually already in a liquid phase. If it were to melt, it would be bad news for coastal cities.

    1. That’s actually pretty interesting. One of the things that really bugs me about the alarmists is that they tend to freeze out people like this guy as well. It seems if you don’t buy into the catastrophic view, you’re out. There’s a guy over at Cato who makes similar arguments and he’s persona non grata as well.

      1. It was a really good talk. He was very frank about what we know and don’t know. What we don’t know includes how to model the climate to the level of accuracy that has often been publicized. Aerosols and clouds are also a huge unknown, and could have a warming or cooling effect depending on the details.

        But he was also very frank that CO2 concentrations are rising, they are from human activity, they are reaching levels that historically high over the last 800,000 years (that comes from ice core sampling), and that if, say, the Greenland ice sheet were to melt (which it is doing), ocean levels would increase by something like 25 feet. If Antarctica melted completely, we’d be looking at sea level increases of over 100 feet. That would be very, very costly.

        He also had a nice explanation of how warming can affect things like desertification (basically, warm dry air is concentrated around +/- 20 deg latitude but if the planet warms, those desert belts move northward as the tropics grow). But he also pointed out that a country like Canada or Russia might like this…they could become the bread baskets of the world. In other words, he recognized that there were tradeoffs and that climate change could have some local benefits, but that it could also have enormous local costs.

        1. Canada and Russia are bread baskets to the world. I hope you are remembering wrong and he didn’t actually say that.

          1. Neither is in the top three for corn, rice, or wheat, and those three make up 75% of the grains that the world eats. I’m pretty sure he meant that they would be able to grow a lot more, not that they don’t grow anything right now.

            1. Total Grains:
              China, USA, India are top 3.
              Then a HUUUUUUGE gap to
              Brazil, France, Russia, Indonesia, Canada.

        2. Here is an article from just yesterday, a sober affirmation of his concern about Greenland.

          http://mashable.com/2016/06/13…..JsnFBXOOqI

        3. Did you ask him why he limited his criteria to only 800,000 years ago? That’s like last week as far as climate science goes, wouldn’t you say?

          1. Probably because the ice core samples don’t go back farther than that. Would you rather he make up data?

      2. That’s why I can’t take the AGW crowd seriously. For them, you either subscribe to their apocalyptic predictions in the very near future or you are a “denier.” Period. No room for reflection of where/how/why they get something wrong, no room for debate of the cost-benefits of slowing economic and technological developments that help very poor people right now -vs- longterm benefits of doing something drastic right this second. It’s all or none with them.

        1. Well, not with this guy.

    2. If you take out the alarmists, the whole thing ends up being a mild irritation at most, even if it is true, which is hardly clear.

      1. Not if sea levels increase by 10s of feet.

        1. Over decades, which is the worst possible scenario that everyone agrees isn’t the case.

          Is it hard to move over the course of 100 years? You’re in danger of dying of old age before drowning, at that rate.

          1. Could 100s of millions of people relocate? Sure. But it wouldn’t be cheap. Could a country like the U.S. absorb the cost? Probably. May not be the case for poorer countries.

            1. And yet no acceleration in sea level rise. And it won’t be decades if it does melt, it will be centuries to millennia. We have far, far bigger things to worry about even if this were true.

        2. 10 feet! That’s about 3,000 mm. At 3 mm per year we only have 1,000 years! Holy shit – sell the beach house pronto!

  26. I did some googling last week after the Ron’s last climate change article. The notion that the satellite data is a bunch of hooey and Roy Spencer is a charlatan is very popular on the internet. Is this really the prevailing view? Or is there an inherent problem with bias if one simply googles something?

  27. It’s really an old story. In 1998 Cato tried the same grading of Hansen, while conveniently leaving out the fact that Hansen ranged his predictions. Just as the IPCC has always ranged their predictions. The reality has been closer to Hansen’s middle range, and not the two at opposite ends.

    But that hasn’t taken potential “catastrophic” global warming off the table, has it? And it doesn’t have to be “catastrophic” to cause large problems for mankind. And the year 2100 isn’t a magic bullet…whatever the rate of warming actually is it will continue past that year if steps aren’t taken to control it. And what has occurred in the 5 or 6 years since 2009? The warmest 5 year period since record keeping.

    “May not” also infers “may.” And it’s the “may” that climate scientists the world over are concerned with, now along with every country. And nothing has occurred since Hansen’s testimony to suggest scientists or all the world’s countries are wrong. It suggests they are simply paying attention to reality.

    1. Link to 1998 Cato article
      http://www.cato.org/publicatio…..ant-treaty

    2. Last 5 years of warming

      http://www.theguardian.com/env…..record-wmo

    3. Shut up Joe. No one cares. Really, no one cares.

    4. Jackand Ace|6.14.16 @ 1:37PM|#
      “It’s really an old story. In 1998 Cato tried the same grading of Hansen, while conveniently leaving out the fact that Hansen ranged his predictions.”
      IOWs, he’d hedged his predictions such that they are worthless and it’s been known for quite a while. But dim-bulbs like you haven’t gotten the memo.

      “But that hasn’t taken potential “catastrophic” global warming off the table, has it? And it doesn’t have to be “catastrophic” to cause large problems for mankind”
      Uh, I’m sure you thought that meant something other than weaseling, didn’t you?

    5. The warmest years! The earth has been warming since about 1750. There were record warm years in the 1760’s, 1770’s, 1780’s, 1790’s, 1800’s, 1810’s, etc for almost every decade until today.( Except the 1950’s, 1960’s , 1990’s, and 2000’s, of course. )

      Unprecedented! Panic! Do something! Anything!!!

  28. The temperature data are weak, but at least they are data. The “man-made” part is entirely conjecture.

  29. “which is within the spread of increased temperatures predicted by Hansen”

    power of the test? for gawd’s sake

    The temperature increase would also have been consistent with a prediction of between 0.5 and 6.0 – so f-ing what?

    Hansen was blowing smoke. The conman’s out in selling the deal isn’t the high number – that’s to divert the eye and provoke the anxiety of urgency – but the lower number 0.5, which was not at all unreasonable at the time given the longer-term trends coming out of the little ice age. Not a sure thing, but it was a pretty safe bet. So it is quite reasonable to focus on the anxiety-provoking and headline-grabbing higher limit of the range and not let the fear mongers weasel out with a cheap claim of “but it was in the range of my prediction.”

    By the way, speaking of large ranges for predictions, since 1980 has there been any change in the Holy, Official, Consensus, IPCC likely equilibrium ranges of sensitivity of temperature to CO2 doubling? It’s always been between 1.5 and 4.5 C, hasn’t it? For nearly four decades the same range. That alone should tell you about what’s going on. And after how much taxpayer money spent on this exercise? And when in 2080 or so when it comes in at a maybe 1.6 – and nobody can detect any appreciable difference except a greener planet – and many a tenured professor has lived and died with happy climate-change funding – we all can look back and say, well the predictions were right all along.

  30. And just to stay current, May 2016 was the warmest May recorded, according to NASA, their 8th straight month of “warmest such month.”

    http://m.phys.org/news/2016-06…..-nasa.html

    Of course that is surface temperature, where we reside, and not “temperature” thousands of feet up.

    1. And just to stay current, it was nowhere near what the predictions claimed, right Jack?
      Hey Jack! Ever show up when you’re called on your bullshit, Jack? Of course you don’t; slimy turds never do.

  31. Uh wait a minute here. 1958 was almost 30 years in the past by 1986. Only half his “prediction” even applied to the future.

    So we got a number of 0.65 for 1958 to 1986. And a 0.2 between 2016 and 1986. Therefore Hansen looked at a temp that already rose 0.45 degrees by 1986 and made the bold prediction it would rise at least another 0.05 degrees in the next 30 years? I’m not that impressed.

    1. “Predictions are hard. Especially about the future.”

  32. It was 70 degrees when I woke up this morning; now it’s 80. At this rate, we’ll all be dead by Friday.

    Why do we care about temperature change over a few decades? It’s statistically insignificant in geological time and ignores the cyclical nature of climate. If it’s the warmest it’s been in the past 100,000 years, so what? All that means is it’s the warmest point in our current interglacial, which we should enjoy before we are shortly plunged into a 100,000-year cryogenic hell, as has happened 50 times before during our cuuent quaternary ice age, and will happen again as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow.

    1. We haven’t even reached the MWP let alone the HCO.

  33. On the other hand, the lower rate of temperature increase suggests that most computer climate models relied upon by Hansen are running far too hot, and future temperature increases may not portend catastrophic changes by the end of this century.

    Even the higher end of the predictions isn’t catastrophic; warming is primarily at higher latitudes, which is generally beneficial.

    Furthermore, the predictions are irrelevant anyway since there is nothing government can realistically do about it. Fossil fuel use will gradually phase out over the next 50 years with or without government intervention; if anything, it will probably take longer to phase it out if governments try to intervene and speed up the process.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.