1986 Hansen : 5 Degrees Warming By 2010

June 11, 1986

Average global temperatures would rise by one-half a degree to one degree Fahrenheit from 1990 to 2000 if current trends are unchanged, according to Dr. Hansen’s findings. Dr. Hansen said the global temperature would rise by another 2 to 4 degrees in the following decade.

While the effect of small increases in global temperature is now unclear, Andrew Maguire, vice president of the World Resources Institute, a Washington research and policy group, said that the doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide that is foreseen would cause a rise of 3 to 8 degrees in temperature by the 2030’s. He said this would devastate agriculture in the United States and elsewhere, and would cause a rise in sea level of some 4.5 feet as polar ice melted.



About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to 1986 Hansen : 5 Degrees Warming By 2010

  1. philjourdan says:

    Only 5 degrees off.

    • tom0mason says:

      Geologically speaking that quite close. 😊


    • Eric Simpson says:

      Lol on that. Hansen et al have been, as per lead ipcc author Stephen Schneider’s instructions, “offering up [bs] scary scenarios” for decades. Temperatures to rise 5° in 30 years with 4.5 feet of sea level rise? Said in 1986? Then that’s what we should be seeing… NOW. But we see… … nothing. Nada, niente, nichts! Same as it ever was. No rise in temperature, no rise in sea level. None. As far as I can see. And feel. And any “data” showing the most minimal of rises is subject to serious doubt.

      Not one of the Chicken Little’s outrageous predictions of doom has ever even come close to coming true. It’s ridiculous. And they never stop with their constant fear mongering. A broken record. It’s Deja Vu again and again. And the starkness of their glaring inaccuracies is almost shocking in the sense that few among the leftists and MSM see this at all. Indeed they seem to think that’s Hansen’s and the climate model predictions have actually come true, that our world is right now in the process of boiling away. Not: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

  2. daveandrews723 says:

    It’s amazing how “science” turned into science fiction in 28 short years. Hansen, Mann, and a bunch of others have no shame apparently. We already knew that politicans don’t.

  3. Shazaam says:

    One could assume they base their “devastation of agriculture” on the historical results of the 1930’s heat wave.

    Pity they are not honest enough to state that “based on the 1930’s heat wave….”

  4. Anything is possible says:

    Three to eight degrees of warming by 2030?

    Even the NCDC adjustments can’t keep up with that!

    • nielszoo says:

      It’s “all hands on deck” time. As Tony has (inconveniently) pointed out here several times NASA’s doing their best to help with those pesky warming problems. They can still knock a few more degrees off the front end of the target period if necessary.

  5. tom0mason says:

    Hansen was the alarmists biggest bullsh¦tter,
    “Dr. Hansen said the global temperature would rise by another 2 to 4 degrees in the following decade.” Utter cr@p. Not without massive fraudulent adjustments to the temperature records.

    “3 to 8 degrees in temperature by the 2030’s” fµ©ĸıŋg nonsense from Hansen again. A scare to get the politicians attention and it did. His own published work at the time did not have such outrageous assertions.

    “and would cause a rise in sea level of some 4.5 feet as polar ice melted” Hansen’s not too dumb to realize that this would get headlines and it did. Otherwise, as he probably knew at the time, it had little basis in truth.

  6. Mat Helm says:

    Dose anyone think it was a typo of Hansen’s in saying that carbon “dioxide” would cause crop failure, as apposed to carbon carbon “monoxide”….

  7. darrylb says:

    BTW, warming of the poles causing sea level to rise? NO– melting sea ice does not cause a rise in sea level or Archimedes had it all wrong.
    The only things that can cause sea level to rise are glacier melt, thermal expansion and something that IMHO is overlooked, run off from water use on land. The aquifers have been decreasing in volume. Out insane preoccupation with AGW has caused us to not look at actual environmental problems.

  8. Cornelius says:

    The … uh … core science is still valid. And … uh … 97%. And … pointing out intentionally exaggerated predictions from serial liars makes you the equivalent of a Holocaust denier. And also an oil shill. And a nutjob conspiracy theorist. Aaaaaaand … other things as well. Argument won by me.

  9. BallBounces says:

    Is there a single warmist prediction that has come true?

    Is there a master list of predictions anywhere, failed fulfilled? E.g., have 97% of predictions failed?!

  10. BallBounces says:

    Can someone tell me why the authorities don’t post global temperatures on a +/- margin of error basis, e.g., +/- 1 C?

    Aren’t precise temperatures unrealistic and therefore bogus science?

    Is it because the alleged warming would fall within a margin of error?

    • Shazaam says:

      Indeed, you have nailed it.

      Thus to avoid explaining themselves to politicians who do understand “margin of error” because of living by opinion polls, the margin of error is just never mentioned.

    • darrylb says:

      Actually there is an ensemble of various different models, each seemingly owned by an individual or institution, and each its own hypothesis. and small people like me do not have access to all the input, only the outcome, along with commentary.
      However, they all have about the same general algorithm and application of physical laws.
      The average of all these is what is often presented.
      Also, they are lacking in many ways because they cannot deal with unknowns, and/or unknown/unknowns. It seems to me to be analogous to an engineer building a device from the atoms on up.
      They have trouble coupling ocean and atmosphere fluid motion.
      They do not account for oceanic oscillations, high pressure and low pressure areas.
      They do not account for and cannot predict El Nino’s (ENSO) or La Ninas.
      They cannot even hind cast correctly even when they know the result.
      They have IMO tried to account for the 40’s to 70’s cooling by over juicing aerosol emissions from volcanoes
      —and worst of all they cannot account for cloud behavior, which could either warm or cool depending on type and height.
      In other words, if modelers were honest with themselves, they would simply acknowledge that there are too many variables, too many unknowns, and as Dr. Judith Curry suggests, there is the ever present uncertainty monster.

      • darrylb says:

        As to the margin of error, the latest IPCC report about doubled the range of warming scenarios, from just a little to a whole lot.
        So they have 95% confidence they can hit the broad side of a barn from 20 feet away.

  11. KTM says:

    The 1965 projection that was cited in President Nixon’s archives predicted that by the year 2000 temps would rise by 7 degrees, and sea levels would rise by 10 feet, inundating both NYC and DC. They also predicted that by 2200 sea levels would rise by an additional 200 feet, or about 1 foot per year.

    So, if you do a “Nature trick” and splice those two predictions together they said that by 2014 sea levels should be 24 feet higher than 1965.

    • BallBounces says:

      Dear KTM, We like the way you think, but you’re on the wrong team. Would you consider coming over to the warmist side? We have virtually unlimited funding, and the biggest issue we face is how to spend the grant money before the fiscal year runs out.

  12. Pete Fox says:

    Off topic question to the gang here. I’d like to confirm my understanding that CO2 levels much above 400ppm really won’t absorb a appreciable amount of additional radiant energy simply because the spectral energy in those wave lengths that can be absorbed by CO2 have already been absorbed. Additional CO2 levels will have significantly depreciating effects on warming. Is my understanding correct, and if so is there a nifty source I can be pointed to? Thank you!

    • darrylb says:

      Yes, Pete actually that was known 100 years ago.
      However, the absorption bands do widen slightly.
      What was not known until later is the concept of quantum mechanics.
      A tiny bundle of energy will be absorbed and emitted trillions of times in a microsecond.
      This happens to a very large magnitude in a very tiny space.
      The bottom line, and one that is not well quantified is the amount of feedback of water vapor. More water vapor at lower altitudes would mean more warming.
      Water Vapor is the number one greenhouse gas.

      Therein lies the big question. The science is complicated and really there are many unknowns.

      Twenty years ago they thought they knew what was happening, but really they do not.

      So yeah, it is saturated with respect to the absorption by CO2 of radiation from the earths surface, but beyond that there are many questions.

      • Mat Helm says:

        I hesitate to wonder in this one as I’m just a hobbyist quantum mechanic, so I’ll do so in the form of a question. Would it not be more specific to say “the physics” rather than “the science” is complicated? I just think that much like the Noble Peace Prize, the word “science” has lost any meaning at this point….

        • darrylb says:

          Mat, I agree, for the most part,. My background is in physics and chemistry.
          A good understanding of geology is useful.
          That which I never really appreciated and now I realize is crucial is a good understanding of statistics and statistical methods.
          I am very limited and am only able to glean and react to the probabilities presented.
          Of course we all have an understanding of basic stats, it is the ability to choose valid methods that leaves me behind.
          I keep studying what Steve M. at Climate Audit presents. He sometimes gets attacked by some with lesser abilities, when really they should be recruiting him to analyze their work.

        • Mat Helm says:

          I’d almost forgotten what it was like conversing with a fellow member of the three digit IQ club…. ;p
          or even those who actually do the math on things….

      • tom0mason says:

        As I see it, if water in the atmosphere (below the tropopause) has reached its IR saturation logically the CO2 (at the same height) has already got to IR saturation. True?
        Also the IR band for water is very elastic compared to just about any other gas in the atmosphere, and if transitional states such as condesation to water droplet, or ice and vice versa are accounted for too, then water’s IR absortion/emission spectrum becomes very broad and complex.

        • darrylb says:

          Tom o m Water Vapor is essentially the only non homogeneous gas in the atmosphere.
          It is considered to be chaotic because it is impossible to predict with any significant degree of accuracy what the concentration will be at any time in any place. — and as you indicated in what phase. Therefore, I do not see how it can be saturated with respect to IR radiation when it varies in amount so much.
          It may be saturated at some locations at some point in time.

        • tom0mason says:

          Thank you,
          I believe we have reached a consensus.
          Oh my, is that allowed?


      • Pete Fox says:

        Thank you very much, this helps a lot. I’ll definitely add the “unknowns” caveat outside of the simplistic CO2 saturation component within my discussions as I pretend I know what the heck I’m talking about .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s