The Planet is Heating Up Faster than Models Predict -- James Hansen

[Libby von H]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/02/climate/the-planet-is-heating-up-faster-than-predicted-says-scientist-who-first-warned-the-world-about-climate-change/index.html

James Hansen whose 1988 testimony before Congress was the first many had heard of global warming, has co-published a study in which he claims that the globe is warming faster than models predict primarily because of reductions in aerosol emissions from China and internationally from shipping. Michael Mann disagrees, noting that the truth is bad enough. Hansen says the 1.5C threshold is dead as a doornail and keeping us withing 2C by 2050 will require concerted effort. Hansen suggests we consider the use of solar geoengineering though several other experts warn that such a strategy poses severe dangers. The article notes that June, July, August, September and October of this year have all set monthly global temperature records

I guffaw at this nonsense. I worked for decades in the computer field and models are the laughingstock of programmers

“So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?” « Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science

statmoddev.stat.columbia.edu

"[Imperial College epidemiologist Neil] Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.

Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.

So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?"

 

[LeroyDumonde]

I take it "He" is James Hansen. I cannot tell what "it" is that's more correct then before and I assume "theory" is AGW. But AGW has not failed and Hansen never suggested that it had. Thus, I still don't have a fucking clue what you're trying to say.

The predictions of the AGW theory don't match observations. That's why it's been falsified. You understand that theories are to be disregarded if they don't match observation, correct?

 

[jc456]

I take it "He" is James Hansen. I cannot tell what "it" is that's more correct then before and I assume "theory" is AGW. But AGW has not failed and Hansen never suggested that it had. Thus, I still don't have a fucking clue what you're trying to say.

I knew you had the ability to follow an adult conversation

 

[jc456]

The predictions of the AGW theory don't match observations. That's why it's been falsified. You understand that theories are to be disregarded if they don't match observation, correct?

Naw, she is obtuse

 

[Crick]

The predictions of the AGW theory don't match observations.

Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? - Carbon Brief

Scientists have been making projections of future global warming using climate models of increasing complexity for the past four decades.

www.carbonbrief.org

That's why it's been falsified.

Let's see your data.

You understand that theories are to be disregarded if they don't match observation, correct?

I understand that you don't have a fucking clue. Or else you're hunky dory with lying out your ass.

 

[jc456]

Let's see your data

Let’s see your data that was used for your charts

BTW,

 

[LeroyDumonde]

View attachment 856402

View attachment 856403

View attachment 856405

View attachment 856406

View attachment 856407

View attachment 856408

View attachment 856409

View attachment 856410

Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? - Carbon Brief

Scientists have been making projections of future global warming using climate models of increasing complexity for the past four decades.

www.carbonbrief.org

Let's see your data.

I understand that you don't have a fucking clue. Or else you're hunky dory with lying out your ass.

You literally started this thread by posting an article saying that global warming is increasing faster than models predict.

 

[Crick]

You literally started this thread by posting an article saying that global warming is increasing faster than models predict.

That is not a failure of AGW theory. If Hansen is right, and I'm not saying he is, climate sensitivity is higher than the value the IPCC arrived at assessing the published science.

You remind me of debates we used to have about evolution vs creationism. Creationists would see biologists debating the finer points of evolutionary theory and would conclude that there was some enormous debate among scientists as to whether or not evolution was taking place at all. That same thing took place wrt tobacco and cancer.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

That is not a failure of AGW theory. If Hansen is right, and I'm not saying he is, climate sensitivity is higher than the value the IPCC arrived at assessing the published science.

So comparing models to observation doesn't provide a test of the theory. What are the testable predictions of the theory?

 

[Crick]

So comparing models to observation doesn't provide a test of the theory. What are the testable predictions of the theory?

You seem to be confusing AGW theory with general circulation models. They are not the same thing. That's like apples and tree branches.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

You seem to be confusing AGW theory with general circulation models. They are not the same thing.

So I'm asking what predictions AGW makes.

 

[Crick]

So I'm asking what predictions AGW makes.

It predicts that increasing CO2 will cause increasing temperatures.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

It predicts that increasing CO2 will cause increasing temperatures.

In the 1940's increasing CO2 caused temperatures to decrease. Now I know what you're going to say: Correlation does not equal causality. And you'd be right. But then we have another problem. Your theory has never been tested, because correlation over the past 50 years of increasing temps and CO2 cannot possibly test the theory. So all you've done is present a pseudo-theory that makes no testable predictions.

 

[jc456]

You seem to be confusing AGW theory with general circulation models. They are not the same thing. That's like apples and tree branches.

Models are not observed

 

[Crick]

In the 1940's increasing CO2 caused temperatures to decrease.

No it didn't. Aerosols did.

Now I know what you're going to say: Correlation does not equal causality.

I wasn't but it's true. It is also true that causes are always correlated with their effects.

And you'd be right.

What I was thinking was that neither I nor anyone with the most basic of science education has ever claimed that CO2 was the only thing affecting the Earth's temperature.

But then we have another problem.

Then we'd best call the "Uh-Oh" Squad.

Your theory has never been tested, because correlation over the past 50 years of increasing temps and CO2 cannot possibly test the theory.

Why do you think that?

So all you've done is present a pseudo-theory that makes no testable predictions.

The theory is not mine but it is most assuredly not pseudo and makes numerous testable predictions. It is quite falsifiable.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The predictions of the AGW theory don't match observations. That's why it's been falsified. You understand that theories are to be disregarded if they don't match observation, correct?

Bingo... We Have a Winner...

Empirical Verification.... What a concept... This is why modeling today doesn't want their models checked.

 

[Crick]

Bingo... We Have a Winner...

Empirical Verification.... What a concept... This is why modeling today doesn't want their models checked.

What modelers don't want their models checked?

Still waiting to see the source of your claim that CO2 could only produce 0.084C warming.

 

[ding]

It predicts that increasing CO2 will cause increasing temperatures.

Sure, in theory that is true. The question is how much and that is where I disagree. The radiative forcing of CO2 is quite weak. Their bullshit claim of climate sensitivity is the problem which leads to unrealistic projections of runaway temperatures. If they ever published the components separately, this debate would be over. That's how unrealistic they are with their climate sensitive. The vast amount of warming that has occurred since the little ice age is natural warming of an interglacial period.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Sure, in theory that is true. The question is how much and that is where I disagree. The radiative forcing of CO2 is quite weak. Their bullshit claim of climate sensitivity is the problem which leads to unrealistic projections of runaway temperatures. If they ever published the components separately, this debate would be over. That's how unrealistic they are with their climate sensitive. The vast amount of warming that has occurred since the little ice age is natural warming of an interglacial period.

The IPCC report is well over 1,000 pages long, but the CO2 warm forcing formula covers a single page and can be easily tested and shown to be a trivial warming effect at the 440 ppm level thus not a concern.

Here is what the doubling of CO2 is postulated to generate,

"Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.

The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise."

LINK

===

The change even at the doubling level is trivial thus the AGW is worthless to worry over.

 

[justoffal]

The reason why we are getting these stupid dishonest papers and reports in because a major Climate Summit is coming up.

Yep ..... People still have a dime left in their pocket and it really pisses them off. Got to figure out how to get the rest of that money out.