Very warm, no modern day trees, no ice, high seas

[Old Rocks]

No, they weren't you lying sack of poo. hansen was miles off on his predictions. He has NEVER been correct. Even with NO drastic reduction in GHG production the temperatures are far below his three predictions.

JAMES HANSEN'S 1988 PREDICTIONS COMPARED TO OBSERVATIONS on JSTOR

Dale R. McIntyre, JAMES HANSEN'S 1988 PREDICTIONS COMPARED TO OBSERVATIONS, Energy & Environment, Vol. 20, No. 4 (2009), pp. 587-594

www.jstor.org

A liar quoting liars. What else to expect.

Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981

In previous Lessons from Past Predictions entries we examined Hansen et al.'s 1988 global warming projections (here and here). However, James Hansen was also the lead author on a previous study from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) projecting global warming in 1981, which...

skepticalscience.com

That graph only goes to 2010, what we have had since then is right on the upper line.

 

[ding]

A liar quoting liars. What else to expect.

View attachment 574130

Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981

In previous Lessons from Past Predictions entries we examined Hansen et al.'s 1988 global warming projections (here and here). However, James Hansen was also the lead author on a previous study from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) projecting global warming in 1981, which...

skepticalscience.com

That graph only goes to 2010, what we have had since then is right on the upper line.

Published paper beats rock.

 

[Old Rocks]

I about fell out of my chair when I read you invoking Paleo-climatology. According to Paleo-climatology CO2 does not drive climate change. If t did our present temperature wouldn't be 2C cooler than previous interglacial cycles when our atmospheric CO2 was 120 ppm greater than previous interglacial cycles. It would be 2C warmer than previous interglacial cycles not 2C less. That's a difference of 4C.

Wrong, dead wrong. Here is a lecture from an AGU conference.

 

[ding]

Wrong, dead wrong. Here is a lecture from an AGU conference.

If increased CO2 leads to warmer temperatures, why is our temperature 2C less than the previous interglacial cycles when out atmospheric CO is 120 ppm greater?

 

[Old Rocks]

Published paper beats rock.

PNAS paper, the whole of it available without cost.

Publication Abstracts​

Hansen et al. 1981​

Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

pubs.giss.nasa.gov

 

[ding]

PNAS paper, the whole of it available without cost.

Publication Abstracts​

Hansen et al. 1981​

Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

pubs.giss.nasa.gov

Yes, a published paper that was shown to be inaccurate by another published paper. That's how that usually works.

 

[Old Rocks]

If increased CO2 leads to warmer temperatures, why is our temperature 2C less than the previous interglacial cycles when out atmospheric CO is 120 ppm greater?

Reasonable question. The CO2 concentration for our interglacial is actually 20 ppm less than in the previous interglacial. And that 20 ppm made a difference of over 20 feet in sea level. However, we have these really big temperature inertia machines out there called oceans. So even though we are now 120 ppm above the pre-industrial level, the oceans have absorbed most of that heat. But it is heating up.

• The average global sea surface temperature has increased about 1.5oF since 1901, an average rate of 0.13oF per decade.
• The average global sea surface temperature has been consistently higher during the past three decades than at any other time since reliable records began in 1880.
• A Warming Ocean

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, a published paper that was shown to be inaccurate by another published paper. That's how that usually works.

No, it was not. That other paper was a lie.

Steve McIntyre Joins the Obfuscation Party​

Sadly, Steve McIntyre tripled down on these myths by both repeating Pielke's strawman attacks on Field and by inventing a new conspiracy theory that the draft IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is "hiding" discussions of past mega-droughts. We cannot address this conspiracy in detail since the AR5 is still in draft form. However, suffice it to say that the latest draft version actually has more information about North American mega-droughts than the previous version, including Figure 5.12 which now depicts the severity duration and frequency of droughts in North America.

Selective Skepticism​

The real irony here is that Pielke Jr. and McIntyre falsely accuse Field of misleading Congress while completely ignoring that John Christy actually did mislead Congress in the very same hearing. In fact, Pielke and McIntyre double and triple down on Christy's myth that human activities are not contributing to extreme weather events, which is really just a distraction from the fact that human-caused climate change will certainly cause many types of extreme weather to occur more frequently in the future. This series of events illustrates that Pielke Jr. and Steve McIntyre do not seem willing to apply their 'skepticism' and 'auditing' to climate contrarians.

There is a silver lining in this cloud of obfuscation - climate contrarians appear to be retreating more and more away from the "it's not happening" and "it's not us" myths, toward the "it's not bad" fallback position.

However, this means we must be increasingly vigilant when faced with misleading arguments like Christy's and Pielke's that climate change is nothing to worry about. It has taken decades to transition away from the former two myths - we cannot afford to allow the contrarian obfuscation regarding the consequences of climate change to be as efffective in delaying action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We simply don't have the time for this nonsense anymore.

Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation

On August 1st 2012, John Christy once again testified before the US Congress in a Senate hearing on climate issues. His written testimony is here and his verbal testimony is here. Christy's latest testimony consisted entirely of five climate myths, four of which we debunked in a previous post...

skepticalscience.com

 

[Captain Caveman]

Because not a thing you posted is true. Why are you such an ignorant ass? No, the world is not going to end if we exceed 3 C. But things could get very uncomfortable for a large proportion of humanity, and the impact of habitat loss to human activity combined with climate change could spell extinction for many of the species presently on Earth. There is a discipline called Paleoclimatology. Perhaps if you just read a little in that, you could post a little bit intelligently about past climates and their study.

Ok brains, what habitat did the dinosaurs lose? You stupid fucking bell end.

 

[ding]

Reasonable question. The CO2 concentration for our interglacial is actually 20 ppm less than in the previous interglacial. And that 20 ppm made a difference of over 20 feet in sea level. However, we have these really big temperature inertia machines out there called oceans. So even though we are now 120 ppm above the pre-industrial level, the oceans have absorbed most of that heat. But it is heating up.

• The average global sea surface temperature has increased about 1.5oF since 1901, an average rate of 0.13oF per decade.
• The average global sea surface temperature has been consistently higher during the past three decades than at any other time since reliable records began in 1880.
• A Warming Ocean

Our present CO2 is 120 ppm more than the peak atmospheric CO2 of previous interglacial cycles. So our present temperature should be warmer than the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles but it isn't. We are 2C cooler than the peak temperature of previous interglacials.

Why isn't our temperature warmer than the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles when our atmospheric CO2 is 120 ppm greater?

 

[ding]

No, it was not. That other paper was a lie.

Steve McIntyre Joins the Obfuscation Party​

Sadly, Steve McIntyre tripled down on these myths by both repeating Pielke's strawman attacks on Field and by inventing a new conspiracy theory that the draft IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is "hiding" discussions of past mega-droughts. We cannot address this conspiracy in detail since the AR5 is still in draft form. However, suffice it to say that the latest draft version actually has more information about North American mega-droughts than the previous version, including Figure 5.12 which now depicts the severity duration and frequency of droughts in North America.

Selective Skepticism​

The real irony here is that Pielke Jr. and McIntyre falsely accuse Field of misleading Congress while completely ignoring that John Christy actually did mislead Congress in the very same hearing. In fact, Pielke and McIntyre double and triple down on Christy's myth that human activities are not contributing to extreme weather events, which is really just a distraction from the fact that human-caused climate change will certainly cause many types of extreme weather to occur more frequently in the future. This series of events illustrates that Pielke Jr. and Steve McIntyre do not seem willing to apply their 'skepticism' and 'auditing' to climate contrarians.

There is a silver lining in this cloud of obfuscation - climate contrarians appear to be retreating more and more away from the "it's not happening" and "it's not us" myths, toward the "it's not bad" fallback position.

However, this means we must be increasingly vigilant when faced with misleading arguments like Christy's and Pielke's that climate change is nothing to worry about. It has taken decades to transition away from the former two myths - we cannot afford to allow the contrarian obfuscation regarding the consequences of climate change to be as efffective in delaying action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We simply don't have the time for this nonsense anymore.

Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation

On August 1st 2012, John Christy once again testified before the US Congress in a Senate hearing on climate issues. His written testimony is here and his verbal testimony is here. Christy's latest testimony consisted entirely of five climate myths, four of which we debunked in a previous post...

skepticalscience.com

Publish a paper refuting it. Until then it stands uncontested.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ok brains, what habitat did the dinosaurs lose? You stupid fucking bell end.

All of it. In 24 hours.

 

[Old Rocks]

Publish a paper refuting it. Until then it stands uncontested.

Hansen's papers stand unrefuted. McIntyre's papers were never considered to refute any of Hansen's papers or predictions.

 

[Old Rocks]

What do we learn from James Hansen's 1988 prediction?

<p>Subsequent comparison of observations with predictions find that Hansen's Scenario B (which most closely matched the level of CO2 emissions) shows close correlation with observed temperatures.</p>

skepticalscience.com

 

[westwall]

PNAS paper, the whole of it available without cost.

Publication Abstracts​

Hansen et al. 1981​

Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

pubs.giss.nasa.gov

It was a elegant paper, published at a time when the science was pretty much unknown. Now, however, the science IS known, and it is known to be a failed theory. Only the religious nutters, and the politicians who want power are still pushing it.

 

[westwall]

View attachment 574183

What do we learn from James Hansen's 1988 prediction?

<p>Subsequent comparison of observations with predictions find that Hansen's Scenario B (which most closely matched the level of CO2 emissions) shows close correlation with observed temperatures.</p>

skepticalscience.com

DOH! Seems that reality doesn't conform to models!


We apply this learning model to climate model projections for the 21st century under RCP 8.5. Fig. 4 shows the annual, population-weighted temperature anomalies over the continental United States, for 40 realizations of internal variability (26). Anomalies are defined relative to both a fixed 30-y baseline (1981–2010) and to a shifting baseline defined using our empirically estimated learning model. While persistent warming over the 21st century results in very large temperature anomalies defined relative to a fixed historical baseline, the empirically derived, rapidly shifting baseline results in much smaller temperature anomalies, only slightly above zero. Moreover, given internal climate variability, anomalies relative to the shifting baseline are not clearly distinguishable from zero: Across the 40 realizations, these temperature anomalies are less than zero (i.e., cooler than expected) in 26% of years on average.

Rapidly declining remarkability of temperature anomalies may obscure public perception of climate change

Climate change exposes people to conditions that are historically unusual but that will become increasingly common over time. What kind of weather do people think of as normal or unusual under these changing conditions? We use the volume of social media posts about weather to measure the...

www.pnas.org

 

[ding]

Hansen's papers stand unrefuted. McIntyre's papers were never considered to refute any of Hansen's papers or predictions.

Of course it did. And that refutation has yet to be refuted with a published paper. .

Just like you did not refute my point that if CO2 drives climate change we should be warmer than previous interglacial cycles because our atmospheric CO2 is greater than previous interglacial cycles.

 

[alang1216]

Watching a video on the Chicxulub asteroid and at the 3:00 mark, very interesting to hear that the planet was very warm, no modern day trees and too warm for ice to remain at the poles. Oh, and sea levels some 200 metres higher.

So why the discrepancy with the climate scientists of today? Why the claim of pending doom and gloom?



Can any climate alarmist here explain?

Where are those dinos today?

 

[ding]

Where are those dinos today?

Birds. Or so some say.

 

[alang1216]

Birds. Or so some say.

So of the thousands of dino (and mammalian) species, only a few survived. I don't understand why we're worried about climate change, a few of us will probably survive.