- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
NASA’s James Hansen's global warming scare predictions didn't turn out so well.
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:27 am
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:27 am
by: Tony Heller at realclimatescience.com
NASA’s James Hansen started the global warming scare in earnest, during the very hot summer of 1988.
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.
hat 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.
NASA’s James Hansen started the global warming scare in earnest, during the very hot summer of 1988.
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.
hat 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.
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:33 am to GumboPot
Science denier.
Yes, there are 52 genders. Why do you ask?
Yes, there are 52 genders. Why do you ask?
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:33 am to Wtodd
They (Democrat senator from CO and colleagues on the committee) actually picked the historically hottest day in DC for James Hansen to deliver his senate testimony. The night before senate aids opened windows to the capitol to let out the A/C so the next day the air conditioning was struggling to catch up. It made it "hot" in the building during that day and during his senate testimony. As James Hansen was giving his testimony he was wiping his brow of sweat for an excellent dramatic effect.
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:34 am to GumboPot
Republicans might as well start talking about an alien attack on earth. Start giving some kind of voodoo data that shows we are definitely not alone and we need to cut all social welfare programs to prepare for the attack. It’s basically the same thing as these idiots do with global warming.
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:35 am to udtiger
They actually want you to believe something that is the total opposite of what is in front of your eyes. It's an amazing magic act they have pulled off on a lot of Americans.
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:37 am to GumboPot
BUT HE'S A SCIENTIST!!!!
SCIENCE IS NEVER WRONG, NEITHER ARE HANDPICKED SCIENTISTS!!!!!
RRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SCIENCE IS NEVER WRONG, NEITHER ARE HANDPICKED SCIENTISTS!!!!!
RRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:37 am to SDVTiger
His prediction seems to line up between Scenario B and C.. and that somehow hurts his argument?
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:38 am to EGCROSS
quote:
Republicans might as well start talking about an alien attack on earth. Start giving some kind of voodoo data that shows we are definitely not alone and we need to cut all social welfare programs to prepare for the attack. It’s basically the same thing as these idiots do with global warming.
The political movements are psychological. It's the same psycological effect that make ouija boards "work".
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:40 am to GumboPot
In 3,2,1... MastrShake to the rescue..
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:41 am to bmy
quote:
His prediction seems to line up between Scenario B and C.. and that somehow hurts his argument?
"Scenario A was increasing emission growth rates. Scenario B was decreasing emission growth rates. Scenario C was no emissions after the year 2000."
Ask yourself what scenario we are currently under then check Hansen's prediction.
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:41 am to GumboPot
For anyone that enjoys reading novels, check out Michael Crichton: State of Fear. Again it is a novel and the plot is typical Crichton, but it is heavily footnoted with charts and in the appendix you will find his view of climate change. The thrust is that it is driven by greedy money making fear mongers.
The appendix is full of legit data from legit sources just like those posted in OP. I read this during recovery from Hurricanes Irma and Marie while living on St. Thomas, USVI. We have solar panels that we took down before the storms and put them back up during this period. We have them because the cost of electricity is 10 times that on the mainland. We believe the climate change issues are based on greed and agenda.
The appendix is full of legit data from legit sources just like those posted in OP. I read this during recovery from Hurricanes Irma and Marie while living on St. Thomas, USVI. We have solar panels that we took down before the storms and put them back up during this period. We have them because the cost of electricity is 10 times that on the mainland. We believe the climate change issues are based on greed and agenda.
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:47 am to GumboPot
Wow.
You cannot be serious with this shite? Or do you just not know how to read graphs?
You cannot be serious with this shite? Or do you just not know how to read graphs?
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:48 am to deathvalleytiger10
quote:
In 3,2,1... MastrShake to the rescue..
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:48 am to bmy
quote:
His prediction seems to line up between Scenario B and C.. and that somehow hurts his argument?
Wanna guess what's happened with the CO2 emission growth rate since 1990?
Here's a hint - if Hansen had had a crystal ball, he'd have said that in 2019 we would have been on the A scenario the whole time.
This post was edited on 2/21/19 at 9:00 am
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:51 am to MastrShake
quote:
You cannot be serious with this shite? Or do you just not know how to read graphs?
Waiting on you to correct it...
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:54 am to udtiger
According to Hansen we should be way over a 4 degree C average global temperature rise due to CO2 emissions.
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:55 am to MastrShake
quote:
You cannot be serious with this shite? Or do you just not know how to read graphs?
quote:
MastrShake
Did you ever get around to your lists?
"can you list some of the things from those that have been proven false?
because I can. I can do the entire list for you if you like. "
Lots of people have been anxiously waiting
Posted on 2/21/19 at 8:56 am to IslandBuckeye
quote:
We have solar panels that we took down before the storms and put them back up during this period. We have them because the cost of electricity is 10 times that on the mainland. We believe the climate change issues are based on greed and agenda.
It totally makes sense to install solar there. Not only do you have a lot of sun year-round your electricity prices are high because fossil fuels need to be shipped in to produce electricity.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News