Global Warming Predictions vs Reality After 30 Years

Climate activists demonstrate in Paris, Saturday, Dec.12, 2015 during the COP21, the United Nations Climate Change Conference. Several environmental and human rights groups are planning protests around Paris to call attention to populations threatened by man-made global warming and urge an end to human use of oil, gas and coal. (AP Photo/Thibault Camus)

Promoted from the diaries by streiff. Promotion does not imply endorsement.

It was 1988 and James Hansen went before congress to deliver his prophecy of doom that our current civilization was on its way to being the new Atlantis. We would be submerged below rising oceans, while what little land was left would be desert and scou red by hurricanes, all by an atmosphere turned into an EZ Bake oven. If you thought about it at the time much of the predictions were at best a little off, if not contradictory.  If Hansen had of been a religious leader his claims would have been dismissed outright but because he wore the robes and regalia of a scientist his prophecy of doom was giving credence.

The question is now that time has passed is he a true prophet or just another crazy predicting the end is nigh.

Mr. Hansen’s testimony described three possible scenarios for the future of carbon dioxide emissions. He called Scenario A “business as usual,” as it maintained the accelerating emissions growth typical of the 1970s and ’80s. This scenario predicted the earth would warm 1 degree Celsius by 2018. Scenario B set emissions lower, rising at the same rate today as in 1988. Mr. Hansen called this outcome the “most plausible,” and predicted it would lead to about 0.7 degree of warming by this year. He added a final projection, Scenario C, which he deemed highly unlikely: constant emissions beginning in 2000. In that forecast, temperatures would rise a few tenths of a degree before flatlining after 2000.
Thirty years of data have been collected since Mr. Hansen outlined his scenarios—enough to determine which was closest to reality. And the winner is Scenario C. Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. But we didn’t. And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.
So much for Hansen getting staffers to turn off the air conditioning in congress and demonstrating statistics with rigged dice. I guess if challenged these days he would take a page from Harry Reid and say “Sure I lied but it worked”. What about his other predictions ?
Outside the warming models, his only explicit claim in the testimony was that the late ’80s and ’90s would see “greater than average warming in the southeast U.S. and the Midwest.” No such spike has been measured in these regions.
As observed temperatures diverged over the years from his predictions, Mr. Hansen doubled down. In a 2007 case on auto emissions, he stated in his deposition that most of Greenland’s ice would soon melt, raising sea levels 23 feet over the course of 100 years. Subsequent research published in Nature magazine on the history of Greenland’s ice cap demonstrated this to be impossible. Much of Greenland’s surface melts every summer, meaning rapid melting might reasonably be expected to occur in a dramatically warming world. But not in the one we live in. The Nature study found only modest ice loss after 6,000 years of much warmer temperatures than human activity could ever sustain.
Oops not only not happening can’t happen.  Did Hansen stop at just being wrong ?
Several more of Mr. Hansen’s predictions can now be judged by history. Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted in a 2016 study? No. Satellite data from 1970 onward shows no evidence of this in relation to global surface temperature. Have storms caused increasing amounts of damage in the U.S.? Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show no such increase in damage, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product. How about stronger tornadoes? The opposite may be true, as NOAA data offers some evidence of a decline. The list of what didn’t happen is long and tedious.
If Hansen were a religious leader his cult would be falling apart by now. He isn’t though, he is a hack scientist who created a political agenda. An agenda that allowed the politically connected to take money out of the public’s pocket and put it in theirs. While there is no hope that any of the people involved with this will see the insides of jails they so richly deserve we can hope that future generations look back on this scam and learn from our mistakes.