Why do global warming skeptics refuse to give Hansen credit for his 1988 global warming predictions?

Question

In 1988 James Hansen of NASA predicted the ensuing global warming. He created 3 different scenarios, depending on how human greenhouse gas emissions changed. Actual changes ended up being closest to his Scenario B.

"Scenario B is pretty close and certainly well within the error estimates of the real world changes. And if you factor in the 5 to 10% overestimate of the forcings in a simple way, Scenario B would be right in the middle of the observed trends. It is certainly close enough to provide confidence that the model is capable of matching the global mean temperature rise!"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

Graphically:

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen88_forc.jpg

To hear skeptics talk about it, you would think Hansen said "the planet will warm" and left it at that! He used a climate model (a crude one relative to today's) and accurately predicted the ensuing warming trend.

How about giving him some credit?

c m - you should follow your own advice and look at the science. I wouldn't read Inhofe's blog as a scientific source.

The planet continues to warm: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/t2000.jpg

The hottest years on record are 1998 and 2001-2007: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/global-blended-temp-pg.gif

If you ignore the last 50 years, then sure the hottest years were in the 1930s and 1940s. LOL!

Anyone want to correct the many errors made by LuckyLavs? I don't really feel like rehashing these myths again today.

Here's the first one.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/23/18534/222

Answer 1

The skeptics are not interested in facts. They are interested in spreading right wing propaganda on behalf of the energy industry.

Answer 2

In the 70's various scientists and academics predicted global cooling-- "an imminent ice age upon us" --with the same glib confidence as the warmists of today.

Actually, the warmists are calling it "climate change" now because new observations undermine warmist theory-- it turns out, not all of the globe is warming; only certain parts of it--other parts have in fact experienced record lows. Hence the theory changes to support the facts.

It does not seem these people have any friggin clue what they hell they are talking about. Many scientific agencies -- NOAA for example-- predicted there would be a substantial increase in both the number and magnitude of hurricanes due to global warming last year. Some scientists said there would be even 3 times as many.

And they predicted such high numbers every two or three months. Wrong each time -- it was a regular season in terms of hurricane activity -- the numbers matched the seasonal averages over the past 100 or so years.

Some scientists believe they now "know" the temperature changes over the past 300 years; and have measured it on the precision of 1-3 degrees. Yet in the same vein, they cannot predict tomorrows weather with any amount of reliability...

I think it's time to start revoking government grants. Sure, there are some diligent scientists out there; that do not overreach, that only go where the evidence leads... and your guy might be one of these guys -- I don't know much about him.

But the truth is often drowned out by the throng. Tragically, much of scientific community is operating on consensus these days...

It is no wonder we have hit a technological plateau.

Answer 3

What most global warming skeptics don't realize is that even if global warming is a myth, deforestation of the rainforest and pollution are not. The deforestation of the rainforest is happening at an alarming rate (every second we lose the size of three football fields) and could lead to increased temperatures because the rainforests are linked to climate control. As far as pollution... most people know its just not good.

Answer 4

Credit for what? What you posted has so many qualifiers that it may as well amount to him saying "the planet will warm". By the way, the latest data shows the planet stopped warming in 2001 and that 4 of the hottest years were in the 1930's to 1940's.

Find the latest peer reviewed research here:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

Samantha, why don't you review the latest data and then try to explain how it is "propaganda"? Why don't you go try to find ANYTHING that supports AGW that was released later than 2005?

Richard O, who cares if Inhofe is MADE of oil. That doesn't take away from the peer reviewed studies from reputable climate scientists. Inhofe didn't write the studies, he just links to them. Why don't you actually read them and make up your own mind.

Answer 5

Many scientists (inclusive of Hansen) have reported the early climate archives had errors yet those errors have been corrected by way of the years as archives diagnosis and sequence have stronger a chief occasion is the Mann hockey stick, deniers (of direction) attempt to apply those errors as grounds for stupid conspiracy theories. in the real worldwide issues like the decline of the Arctic are taking place plenty quicker than replaced into expected lower back in the late Eighteen Eighties and nonetheless deniers spout their rubbish. perplexing to appreciate who the real Dana is with a great determination claiming to be him, even copying his residing house internet site i.d. archives despite the fact that it shows in simple terms how frightened of him some are that they could get him banned and then fake to be him, shows in simple terms how infantile some listed right here are.

Answer 6

Actually the temperatures have been rather steady, if not declining.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

People give only graphs when the raw data is so heavily massaged that the raw data is meaningless.

[Edit] When the data has been massaged to fit the hypothesis, only graphs will be presented. This is done to obfuscate the amount of massaging that was done to the numbers, as the raw data will not match the chart.

I gave you raw numbers.

Answer 7

It's VERY cold where I live at the moment, and I dont feel very motivated to complain about how the earth is "superheating".

stand outside and complain to me about how hot it is. then ill give him some credit.

I'm sorry...that sounded rude...I really dont have much of an opinion on the matter.

Answer 8

I agree 100% but as for the skeptics, it's not that they don't believe it's simply that they don't care. Remember, IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!!!

Answer 9

How could they ? Otherwise they are not skeptics.

Answer 10

how about not.