• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
James E. Hansen wiped sweat from his brow. Outside it was a record-high 98 degrees on June 23, 1988, as the NASA scientist testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during a prolonged heat wave, which he decided to cast as a climate event of cosmic significance. He expressed to the senators his “high degree of confidence” in “a cause-and-effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming.”
With that testimony and an accompanying paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Mr. Hansen lit the bonfire of the greenhouse vanities, igniting a world-wide debate that continues today about the energy structure of the entire planet. President Obama’s environmental policies were predicated on similar models of rapid, high-cost warming. But the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s predictions affords an opportunity to see how well his forecasts have done—and to reconsider environmental policy accordingly.

=-=-


Thirty years of data have been collected since Mr. Hansen outlined his scenarios—enough to determine which was closest to reality. And the winner is Scenario C. Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. But we didn’t. And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.
Click to expand...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty...lobal-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442


30 years of data says... the AGW scaremongers were wrong, and need to go away.

Been saying this for years, been told I was a moron, that I was just a "high school grad that read instruments" and all sorts of other insulting things by folks on this forum whose meteorological science understanding was parroting what activists told them to say.

Well, the data is in, ya'll were wrong, I was right.

Can we please move on past the "GLOBAL WARMING" Bs now?
 
Renae said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty...lobal-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442


30 years of data says... the AGW scaremongers were wrong, and need to go away.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif

Seriously? You cited an editorial and a paper from 1988...And you'd have us take you seriously....


Try reading something other than opinion pieces....


 
Last edited:
Xelor said:
giphy.gif

Seriously? You cited an editorial and a paper from 1988...And you'd have us take you seriously....


Try reading something other than opinion pieces....


Click to expand...

Xelor, have you heard of Groupthink, and furthermore have you studied the Eugenics movement of the 19th and early 20th Century? The parallels are startling.

Man isn't causing Global Warming with increases to a gas that's 0.14% of the atmosphere, no matter how much you wish it be true. The data is in, you're on the wrong side, of science.
 
Renae said:
Xelor, have you heard of Groupthink, and furthermore have you studied the Eugenics movement of the 19th and early 20th Century? The parallels are startling.

Man isn't causing Global Warming with increases to a gas that's 0.14% of the atmosphere, no matter how much you wish it be true. The data is in, you're on the wrong side, of science.
Click to expand...

What scientific field do you work in?
 
MrPeanut said:
What scientific field do you work in?
Click to expand...

Spent ten years Active Duty Navy as an AG, so I at least have a practical background in the matter. Unlike so many here.
 
Renae said:
Spent ten years Active Duty Navy as an AG, so I at least have a practical background in the matter. Unlike so many here.
Click to expand...

I have to admit that it seems like a really cool job, but I'm pretty sure that the majority of scientists still support AGW. I'm not sure what you would know that they wouldn't.
 
Renae said:
Xelor, have you heard of Groupthink, and furthermore have you studied the Eugenics movement of the 19th and early 20th Century? The parallels are startling.

Man isn't causing Global Warming with increases to a gas that's 0.14% of the atmosphere, no matter how much you wish it be true. The data is in, you're on the wrong side, of science.
Click to expand...

Well, when you or someone else shows the "parallels" are more than coincidental, there may be cause to give credence to your remarks.
 
Renae said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty...lobal-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442


30 years of data says... the AGW scaremongers were wrong, and need to go away.

Been saying this for years, been told I was a moron, that I was just a "high school grad that read instruments" and all sorts of other insulting things by folks on this forum whose meteorological science understanding was parroting what activists told them to say.

Well, the data is in, ya'll were wrong, I was right.

Can we please move on past the "GLOBAL WARMING" Bs now?
Click to expand...

WSJ oped? Seriously?

Here is why the 'alternative facts' of Cato Institute's paid shill Pat Michaels are wrong, as usual:

Gavin Schmidt -Director of NASA GISS:

30 years after Hansen’s testimony


and another from Yale Climate Connections

"Judgment on Hansen's '88 climate testimony: 'He was right'"

https://www.yaleclimateconnections....on-hansens-88-climate-testimony-he-was-right/


and from Zeke Hausfather from Berkeley Earth

https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1010240647960264705

"In summary, Hansen's model got the relationship between increasing greenhouse gases (and other climate forcings) and global warming dead-accurate. What he didn't get right (and what no one could reasonably expect to get right) is how emissions would change in the future"


Andrew Dessler from Texas A & M

"Dumbest sentence in WSJ oped: "Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16."

Translation: "Temperature has not increased if you omit the data showing it has increased.""

https://twitter.com/AndrewDessler/status/1010193894599004160
 
Last edited:
Climate FAIL / James Hansen
Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?

The short answer, is not all that well. On June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James E. Hansen testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, where he expressed his “high degree of confidence” in “a cause-and-effect relationship between the claimed CO2 induced “greenhouse effect and observed warming.” The 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s…

In an article in the Wall Street Journal today, climatologist Dr Patrick Michaels and meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue compare Hansen’s predictions to actual reality over the past 30 years. Instead of the gloom and doom we heard in 1988, we have an earth that is only moderately warmer, and closer to Hansen’s “scenario C”, the bottom graph below, which is overlaid with actual global temperature data in red.
Hansen_5-720x405.png
Hansen’s fabulously wrong 1988 climate model.​
Here’s some excerpts from the article by climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels and meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue:
“Thirty years of data have been collected since Mr. Hansen outlined his scenarios—enough to determine which was closest to reality. And the winner is Scenario C. Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. But we didn’t. And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago…”
“Several more of Mr. Hansen’s predictions can now be judged by history. Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted in a 2016 study? No. Satellite data from 1970 onward shows no evidence of this in relation to global surface temperature. Have storms caused increasing amounts of damage in the U.S.? Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show no such increase in damage, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product. How about stronger tornadoes? The opposite may be true, as NOAA data offers some evidence of a decline. The list of what didn’t happen is long and tedious.”
​


 
Renae said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty...lobal-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442


30 years of data says... the AGW scaremongers were wrong, and need to go away.

Been saying this for years, been told I was a moron, that I was just a "high school grad that read instruments" and all sorts of other insulting things by folks on this forum whose meteorological science understanding was parroting what activists told them to say.

Well, the data is in, ya'll were wrong, I was right.

Can we please move on past the "GLOBAL WARMING" Bs now?
Click to expand...

Global Warming is a fact, wether you believe in it it not.
 
Renae said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty...lobal-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442


30 years of data says... the AGW scaremongers were wrong, and need to go away.

Been saying this for years, been told I was a moron, that I was just a "high school grad that read instruments" and all sorts of other insulting things by folks on this forum whose meteorological science understanding was parroting what activists told them to say.

Well, the data is in, ya'll were wrong, I was right.

Can we please move on past the "GLOBAL WARMING" Bs now?
Click to expand...

Of course you were right. GW is, and has always been, a Gigantic Hoax! Many jumped on that Money and Power gravy train. Al Gore has been full of beans for 30 years now. Educated people have been pulling their puds on this, for just as long. They have come up dry.
Gore and Obama have gone around the world touting this false narrative and hypocritically burning up thousands of gallons of jet fuel, in the process.
 
Did I say otherwise?
That said we are only the stewards if the planet and need to do a far better job of ensuring that we leave as healthy a planet as possible for future generations.
 
Jack Hays said:
It's the alleged anthropogenic causation that's in dispute.
Click to expand...

For some, others believe it fully and others deny anything at all is happening, the last group are not worthy of attention.
 
Casper said:
For some, others believe it fully and others deny anything at all is happening, the last group are not worthy of attention.
Click to expand...

We'll know soon enough. If current cooling continues for several years then the anthropogenic hypothesis will be increasingly difficult to sustain.
 
Renae said:
You panic because a mild increase on the back end end of a little ice age in warming, OH GNOES!!!
Click to expand...

Did I, hmmmm, I must have missed it, maybe you can point it out, I'll wait while you pull that rabbit out of your......
 
Jack Hays said:
Hansen_5-720x405.png
[FONT="]Hansen’s fabulously wrong 1988 climate model.[/FONT]​
Click to expand...

It should be noted that if you give solar a 100 years for a 70% equalization, that solar warming goes flat in 2004. It should also be noted that Hansen's paper scenario C was modeled under dramatic reductions of CO2 so that CO2 no longer increased in the atmosphere in the year 2000.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf

I say instead, CO2 has an insignificant effect as a greenhouse gas, as it is already near it's maximum effect.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It should be noted that if you give solar a 100 years for a 70% equalization, that solar warming goes flat in 2004. It should also be noted that Hansen's paper scenario C was modeled under dramatic reductions of CO2 so that CO2 no longer increased in the atmosphere in the year 2000.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf

I say instead, CO2 has an insignificant effect as a greenhouse gas, as it is already near it's maximum effect.
Click to expand...

Luckily, no one cares what you say.

What matters is what the educated people who study this for a living say.

And it’s the opposite of your libertarian driven bull****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom