In 1988, the world’s greatest climatologist published these three possible forecasts for future temperatures.
Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes a reduced linear growth of trace gases, and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.
The highest forecast, scenario A was Hansen’s expected “business as usual” forecast, as documented in this 1989 publication.
So how did Hansen’s forecasts fare? NASA five year mean temperatures are plotted in green on top of the 1988 graph below. They are tracking scenario C, which was based on zero emissions this century.
scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000
In other words, the 10% increase in atmospheric CO2 since 2000 has had no effect on the temperature, and warming since 1988 has been less than one-third of what Hansen forecast in his business as usual scenario.
But it is worse than it seems. Until the most recent data tampering, temperatures were below scenario C. The animation below flashes between January 2012 NASA data, and the current NASA data. They are constantly tampering with the data to bump up the feeble warming which has occurred.
Current version : data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
2012 version : data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
But it is even worse than that. Hansen published his most conservative “scientific” forecasts. He was telling the press much higher numbers at the time.
The Milwaukee Journal – Jun 11, 1986
The Milwaukee Journal – Google News Archive Search
Sarasota Herald-Tribune – Jun 11, 1986
Dr. James E. Hansen of the Goddard Space Flight Center’s Institute for Space Studies said research by his institute showed that because of the “greenhouse effect” that results when gases prevent heat from escaping the earth’s atmosphere, global temperatures would rise early in the next century to “well above any level experienced in the past 100,000 years.”
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 Hansen’s findings. Hansen said the global temperature would rise by another 2 to 4 degrees in the following decade.
In summary, the entire global warming story is a total failure – complete with failed forecasts, data tampering and wild exaggerations from the leading government scientist.
Real greenhouses function because there is no atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect that is discussed by climate science for the atmosphere is an entirely different thing than the greenhouse effect of a real physical greenhouse. This is a very convenient hijack of definitions and concepts for creating confusion. A real greenhouse gets warm because it traps hot air. It prevents air which has been heated by the surfaces inside the greenhouse which have themselves been heated by sunshine, from convecting away (hot air rises, the glass roof stops this) and being replaced by cool air from above. That is the physical mechanism of a real greenhouse (because of its solid glass roof) and it has nothing to do with the supposed radiative greenhouse effect in our atmosphere. The underlying physical mechanisms are completely different, and so the term “greenhouse effect” which should correspond to a factual physical greenhouse and the physical trapping of warm air, gets hijacked and contorted and ambiguated with this other atmospheric radiative conception for the atmosphere. It’s a total disaster for clarity, definitions, conceptualization, logic, language, etc.
However the most ironic thing about this, is that the supposed radiative greenhouse effect (which is postulated for the atmosphere) should actually be found and exist in a real physical greenhouse too, because the physics should translate over – but it isn’t!
The only place the supposed radiative greenhouse mechanics exists is within climate alarm – it exists nowhere else in all of industry and all of science and all of physics, etc. It should exist everywhere else because as a basic principle of physics, it has to be universal, and it has to be applicable anywhere else that similar situations exist. Alas, it is nowhere else to be found. It should be seen in a real greenhouse of all places for goodness’ sake! But the radiative greenhouse effect isn’t even found there. Only the real greenhouse effect is found in a real greenhouse.
There literally exists no empirical evidence for the atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect version anywhere. Tests that have been performed to empirically demonstrate it have always and consistently failed to find it, among both critics of the atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect and its supporters. Real physical greenhouses exist; the idea of a radiative atmospheric greenhouse effect is a fiction which hijacks the name of the real thing in a real greenhouse.
The radiative atmospheric greenhouse effect was invented to stand-in for what the lapse rate already naturally explains about the atmosphere – that the bottom of the atmosphere has to be warmer than the blackbody average of the whole system (planet Earth) as seen from outer-space. This radiative greenhouse idea was invented because the lapse rate of the atmosphere, which is a fundamental physical characteristic of all atmospheres around all planets, is left out of the energy accounting and mathematical models that climate science and climate alarm uses for modelling the Earth.
The atmospheric greenhouse effect (AGHE) depends solely upon one of two alternative ideas. And yes please note this, that the supposedly scientific theory of the atmospheric greenhouse effect doesn’t even have a consistent explanation. In any case, we either have that 1) the colder atmosphere heats up the surface, or 2) the atmosphere acts like a mirror and sends surface radiation back to the surface to heat itself up above its own temperature.
Option 1) is a plain falsity because of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Cold doesn’t heat up hot, heat doesn’t flow from cold to hot, hot in heating cold doesn’t become hotter still because it heated the cold. QED. This option doesn’t need to be considered any further. To be sure, this used to be the most common argument and used the phraseology of “backradiation” to “justify” the heating. However, thermal backradiation heating is simply thermal heating from cold going to hot. This is the argument that some organizations still use, but people who are involved in this debate with me have abandoned it because it is so plainly absurd and anti-scientific, and they’ve gotten badly trashed for using it.
Option 2) can be used to develop much more complex sounding mechanics, that usually revolves around a phraseology of “trapping” radiation or heat. All you need to do to figure this one out is take the postulate to the perfect limit, where the atmosphere was a perfect mirror and reflected 100% of the thermal electromagnetic radiation from the surface back to the surface. Again, the Laws of Thermodynamics: a temperature can not increase its own temperature; a temperature can not heat itself; a temperature can not transfer heat to the same temperature or itself. What happens to your temperature when you stand in front of a mirror and get your radiant heat reflected back to you? Nothing. Does shining a flashlight into a mirror make the flashlight shine brighter? No. (Children know this).
So, that’s it. All of the arguments for this atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect (which hijacks the name of the real thing of a completely different process in a real physical greenhouse) fall under one of those two options. Many of the posts on this blog are an analysis of the variations on the arguments, but the summary here is basically all you need to debunk the atmospheric greenhouse effect of climate science and climate alarm.
Without this fake atmospheric radiative version of the greenhouse effect, climate alarm has no basis and no validity whatsoever. Carbon dioxide is plant food and nature wants us to bump it back up to healthier levels of concentration in the atmosphere that are better matched to the evolutionary development and geological history of life. What is a healthier level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Four to five times the concentration it is now – from a scant 400 parts per million of the atmosphere, to a healthier and more robust 2000 parts per million of the atmosphere. If you want to help save the planet, then help figure out a way to get carbon out of the ground and back into the atmosphere and into the biosphere where it originally was and belongs. If the carbon in the ground can be used for producing energy for improving the standard of life of man along the way, then it is a mutual, circle-of-life, Gaiaesque benefit for all.
Hansen’s figures couldn’t have anticipated China and India. So his runaway “business as usual” scenario is probably significantly understated – the graph should be vertical under their impact -showing just how wrong the theory is.
If a financial advisor for example spread this many distortions they’d be in jail.
There’s not just merely “bumping up” warming, they are outright fabricating it.
Naaah. This is just “bumping up.”
“Fabricating” will be when they finally bump it up enough to match Scenario A.
Their story is getting weaker by the year – and it was never too strong in the first place. Man-Made Global Warming: what a comedy!
They bumped the temperature data up just so it almost matches Scenario A. Cute.
Anyone believing these clowns and charlatans is a fool.
Reblogged this on cosmoscon and commented:
This is a graph that the AGW cult doesn’t want you to remember. In 1988 the “settled science” team produced 3 temperature scenarios – A, B and C. Scenario C was modeled assuming that there would be ZERO increase in atmospheric CO2 starting in 2000. Guess which scenario our actual temperatures have tracked?
Permission to reblog at Independent Journal Review, the #2 most trafficked conservative blog in the U.S.?
Of course. The more people that see the facts, the better.
Why are the temperatures for the 20s, 30s, 40s and fifties missing?
I bet doing a second version of the animated graph would be even more instructive were these included.
I guess the problem might be knowing which NASA data sets to use.
It would be even more instructive were the instrumental (rather than ice core) CO2 levels included. This comprehensive data on its own falsifies the AGW hypothesis.
Geez. You make it sound like a big deal. After all, if a pharmacy company altered its data that wouldn’t be a big deal right? Hansen has altered the raw data. So as a scientist I would say that we no longer have any data to look at. What he “altered” is just fabricated data and is not worth analyzing. What he is done is academic fraud.