It’s Dead, Jim

In 1988, NASA’s James Hansen published these three forecasts of global warming doom :

ScreenHunter_2250 Aug. 24 04.10 

At his Congressional testimony that year he said that the uppermost curve, Scenario A, is “Business As Usual.”  Scenario C assumed that no new CO2 was added to the atmosphere after the year 2000


So far, temperatures (normalized to 1980) are below Hansen’s zero CO2 growth Scenario C.

ScreenHunter_2265 Aug. 24 05.08

Government experts are now saying that the global warming hiatus may continue for another decade. I plotted that below.

ScreenHunter_2262 Aug. 24 04.54

That would put temperatures almost 1C below Hansen’s BAU Scenario A. The data indicates that climate sensitivity to CO2 is essentially zero, meaning that James Hansen’s global warming crisis is non-existent. It’s dead, Jim.


About stevengoddard

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

17 Responses to It’s Dead, Jim

  1. QV says:

    Was it CO2 or all greenhouse gasses?
    I think that the IPCC AR4 “commitment” was greenhouse gasses.

    • Hansen told Congress that Scenario A is BAU

      Radiative transfer models show that the only significant greenhouse gases on Earth are H2O and CO2. CH4, CFC’s etc. are completely in the noise.

      • QV says:

        Presumably the increase in temperatures projected in scenario C was due to an increase in H2O?

        • In Hansen’s models, water vapor feedback is the primary driver of temperature increase.

        • Dmh says:

          Atmospheric humidity has been decreasing or with stable averages since ~ 1950,

          The stability of the lower troposphere in the last ~ 25 years is impressive, IMO. With so many changes in the climate since the late 1980’s, the humidity seems to have not changed at all.

  2. Steve Case says:

    “Radiative transfer models show that the only significant greenhouse gases on Earth are H2O and CO2. CH4, CFC’s etc. are completely in the noise.”

    But I read over and over again that CH4 (methane) is 20 to 29 even over 100 times as powerful a green house as as CO2.

    But yeah, it’s dead.

    • CH4 is extremely low concentration, and its absorption bands overlap almost entirely with H2O. Doubling CH4 would have almost no effect in the presence of water vapor.

      • rah says:

        Now wait. I need some clarification here. You say “In Hansen’s models, water vapor feedback is the primary driver of temperature increase.” And yet his charts and statements seem to concentrate on CO2 as the driver. Why?

  3. Steve Case says:

    “CH4 is extremely low concentration, and…”

    So why is it claimed to be over 20 times more powerful a green house gas than CO2?

    Besides sea level acceleration and the disappearing glaciers/water shortage B.S., this claim for CH4 is number 3 on my list of Global Warming lies that needs to be exposed.

  4. Don B says:

    Michael Mann was willing to publically present dodgy data, trying to claim that Hansen’s forecast was correct. Absolutely no shame.

  5. geran says:

    1) The “real science” was never on their side. CO2 is NOT a heat source. Their models assign a “radiative forcing” due to CO2 that does NOT exist.

    2) The temp data did not support their false theories, they had to make “adjustments”, hence Climategate, hence NOAAgate.

    3) Just plain ol’ common sense was a hugh problem for them: “Follow the Money”, Duh.

    4) And, what was their “solution”, to the imaginary problem? Raise taxes!!!

    The title of Sen. Inhofe’s book, “The Greatest Hoax”, says it all.

  6. geran says:

    I just found this (my comments in brackets).

    Anthony Richardson, a climate change ecologist and an associate professor from the University of Queensland, wrote:

    How climate change makes me feel.

    I feel a maelstrom of emotions

    I am exasperated. Exasperated no one is listening. [The funding is running out.]
    I am frustrated. Frustrated we are not solving the problem. [What a whiner.]
    I am anxious. Anxious that we start acting now. [How will he pay his bills?]
    I am perplexed. Perplexed that the urgency is not appreciated. [Can’t get a real job.]
    I am dumbfounded. Dumbfounded by our inaction. [Has no real skills.]
    I am distressed. Distressed we are changing our planet. [May lose his car.]
    I am upset. Upset for what our inaction will mean for all life. [May lose his house.]
    I am annoyed. Annoyed with the media’s portrayal of the science. [May lose his mistress.]
    I am angry. Angry that vested interests bias the debate. [He may have to actually work for a living.]
    I am infuriated. Infuriated we are destroying our planet. [His bank account is plummeting as the global temps plummet.]

    [File this under: [You Just Can’t Make This Stuff Up”]

  7. Alan Poirier says:

    The so-called radiative imbalance is a joke — energy mysteriously vanishes coming in and then LWR gets doubled as “back radiation”. Tell me another one. I can’t stop laughing. There is no CO2 GHE.

    • mjc says:

      CO2 is more powerful than the famed Philosopher’s stone. More magical than anything, ever…it has more power than even the stars themselves.

      It has spontaneous heat generating abilities that, if harnessed should be able to replace every other power source on the planet. Hell, it should even be able to, with out much additional input, be able to quadruple the range of an electric car…

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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