Global Warming Predictions

[BethesdaWX]

You are full of faux outrage.

You're full of Shiiaat

[nzucker]

You are full of faux outrage.

I just think that scientists and the media should try to communicate the truth to the public in order to give everyone a reasonable picture of how the climate works, and how humans have been changing it. When you make a bunch of extremist predictions that don't verify, or seem extremely unlikely to verify (Hansen's comment about NYC being underwater, Viner's comment about British children needing virtual reality to see snow), you lose the respect of the public. Also, people begin to believe that because some of the more extreme scenarios promised didn't happen, that global warming is not a threat at all, which is patently false. If we were given a reasonable explanation of the differing opinions on carbon sensitivity to CO2, and the natural factors that currently oppose these warming tendencies, then we the American people would have a more activist stance on reducing emissions...the fear tactics and failed predictions just scare people away, and polls show that 60-70% of Americans don't see AGW as a major threat. The environmental movement has always had trouble communicating its message, but it was much more effective in the days of explicit chemical pollution, such as Rachel Carson's 1962 classic Silent Spring, than it is today with an intangible issue like climate change over centuries. Hansen's scare tactics and failed predictions only make it more difficult to convince the American public of the threat of altering the planet's climate.

[skierinvermont]

I just think that scientists and the media should try to communicate the truth to the public in order to give everyone a reasonable picture of how the climate works, and how humans have been changing it. When you make a bunch of extremist predictions that don't verify, or seem extremely unlikely to verify (Hansen's comment about NYC being underwater, Viner's comment about British children needing virtual reality to see snow), you lose the respect of the public. Also, people begin to believe that because some of the more extreme scenarios promised didn't happen, that global warming is not a threat at all, which is patently false. If we were given a reasonable explanation of the differing opinions on carbon sensitivity to CO2, and the natural factors that currently oppose these warming tendencies, then we the American people would have a more activist stance on reducing emissions...the fear tactics and failed predictions just scare people away, and polls show that 60-70% of Americans don't see AGW as a major threat. The environmental movement has always had trouble communicating its message, but it was much more effective in the days of explicit chemical pollution, such as Rachel Carson's 1962 classic Silent Spring, than it is today with an intangible issue like climate change over centuries. Hansen's scare tactics and failed predictions only make it more difficult to convince the American public of the threat of altering the planet's climate.

Well I agree scientists need to do a better job communicating the predictions. But I don't count these comments as failed predictions and I am hardly surprised or outraged. Scientists could maybe do a better job but I doubt that would make much of a difference.

There are several major factors working against them and I doubt no matter how effective their communication is or how sound the science is little action will be taken until the warming and melting are too obvious to ignore.

1. The entrenched interests which AGW theory threatens.

2. The fact that doing anything about AGW costs EVERYBODY large amounts of money, time and inconvenience. Drive less, don't eat meat, consume less, and pay more for renewable electricity and hybrid cars. Nobody likes any of that.

3. The general lack of education (and intelligence) amongst much of the American public.

[tacoman25]

Read this article, linked from my original link on the first page:

http://news.google.c...es-hansen&hl=en

Hansen predicted a 3-4F warming by the 2010s for the U.S. (unless you think the newspaper was just blatantly making stuff up - in which case Hansen would have surely pointed this out), as well as 2 degrees of warming globally in 20 years (2006).

It's pretty clear that he expected U.S. warming to follow global warming pretty closely, and he expected too much global warming. He was definitely off.

No response to this, skiier? Hansen went on record with these predictions, and they were clearly off, especially the one for the U.S...not even close, unless we magically warm a couple of degrees or so over the next few years.

I don't care if he didn't publish these numbers in a scientific journal. If you don't say what you really mean/believe or feel the need to exagerrate to get your point across, there's something wrong. Otherwise, his predictions were just a plain miss, no other way around it.

It's a pattern with Hansen, going too extreme, and a big part of the reason I take anything he says now with a grain of salt...and don't completely trust GISS.

[tacoman25]

Well I agree scientists need to do a better job communicating the predictions. But I don't count these comments as failed predictions and I am hardly surprised or outraged. Scientists could maybe do a better job but I doubt that would make much of a difference.

There are several major factors working against them and I doubt no matter how effective their communication is or how sound the science is little action will be taken until the warming and melting are too obvious to ignore.

The fact that you are unable to admit it when predictions based on AGW don't pan out sure makes it look like you have blinders on. It's ok to acknowledge that the scientists (and science) aren't perfect.

[ORH_wxman]

No response to this, skiier? Hansen went on record with these predictions, and they were clearly off, especially the one for the U.S...not even close, unless we magically warm a couple of degrees or so over the next few years.

I don't care if he didn't publish these numbers in a scientific journal. If you don't say what you really mean/believe or feel the need to exagerrate to get your point across, there's something wrong. Otherwise, his predictions were just a plain miss, no other way around it.

It's a pattern with Hansen, going too extreme, and a big part of the reason I take anything he says now with a grain of salt...and don't completely trust GISS.

Hansen is a joke...while I agree with skier on several points about exaggeration on the skeptic side, I disagree with him on this and also GISS...both of those are Hansen babies. I will never trust anything that Hansen says because he has come out in the public and been a blatant extremist. He got arrested, lol. He is not an objective scientist. Every ounce of his behavior is not objective, and when his work is shown to be questionable, he has never come up with anything convincing that he is right. He is just not objective. I'm sure he is a smart guy, but likely biased.

[WeatherRusty]

I doubt Dr. Hansen ever stated on the record that parts of New York City would be under water, winds would be howling, and different species of tree would be growing in the city in a time frame as short as 20 years.. I also doubt he said the U.S. would or could warm as much as 4F in just 20 years.

Those sorts of claims are not in any way, shape or form derived from the science. They sound more like a doctored third party interpretation of a personal conversation had with Dr. Hansen. Why would anyone deem a paraphrasing of Dr. Hansen's words by some unknown reporter as credible, particularly when the claims lie obviously outside what the science allows? There is a credibility gap alright, just like in regarding the interpretation of unknown perpetrators of the stolen/leaked CRU e-mails as credible.

This whole thing has become a joke...or a not so funny tragedy for science and its usefulness to society.

People believe crooks and blatant third party nonsense over the published work of science. Just ducky.

[nzucker]

I doubt Dr. Hansen ever stated on the record that parts of New York City would be under water, winds would be howling, and different species of tree would be growing in the city in a time frame as short as 20 years.. I also doubt he said the U.S. would or could warm as much as 4F in just 20 years.

Those sorts of claims are not in any way, shape or form derived from the science. They sound more like a doctored third party interpretation of a personal conversation had with Dr. Hansen. Why would anyone deem a paraphrasing of Dr. Hansen's words by some unknown reporter as credible, particularly when the claims lie obviously outside what the science allows? There is a credibility gap alright, just like in regarding the interpretation of unknown perpetrators of the stolen/leaked CRU e-mails as credible.

This whole thing has become a joke...or a not so funny tragedy for science and its usefulness to society.

People believe crooks and blatant third party nonsense over the published work of science. Just ducky.

It's not as if newspapers go out and make up Hansen's words....if he said it, it gets printed, as it should for a scientist of public importance/reputation. Furthermore, it's not exactly surprising that Hansen made these comments given his relatively extreme 1988 predictions, his arrest, his other writings on how dire global warming is, etc...

[tacoman25]

I doubt Dr. Hansen ever stated on the record that parts of New York City would be under water, winds would be howling, and different species of tree would be growing in the city in a time frame as short as 20 years.. I also doubt he said the U.S. would or could warm as much as 4F in just 20 years.

Those sorts of claims are not in any way, shape or form derived from the science. They sound more like a doctored third party interpretation of a personal conversation had with Dr. Hansen. Why would anyone deem a paraphrasing of Dr. Hansen's words by some unknown reporter as credible, particularly when the claims lie obviously outside what the science allows? There is a credibility gap alright, just like in regarding the interpretation of unknown perpetrators of the stolen/leaked CRU e-mails as credible.

This whole thing has become a joke...or a not so funny tragedy for science and its usefulness to society.

People believe crooks and blatant third party nonsense over the published work of science. Just ducky.

If you look objectively at the body of evidence, you would see that Dr. Hansen has demonstrated a pattern of repeatedly making extreme statements. It's not a conspiracy, it's not a smear campaign, these statements have been documented over time. And they are perfectly consistent with the activist role he has adopted.

Think about it...

EDIT: By the way, he didn't say the U.S. would warm 4F in 20 years. In 1986, he predicted the U.S. would be 3-4F warmer by the 2010s. So more like 3-4F in 30 years.

[skierinvermont]

EDIT: By the way, he didn't say the U.S. would warm 4F in 20 years. In 1986, he predicted the U.S. would be 3-4F warmer by the 2010s. So more like 3-4F in 30 years.

The only source for this appears to be an extremely overly-dramaticized article from a miami newspaper.. I want to actually see the 1986 testimony before I believe that.

His 1988 paper shows only around 2F of warming from the 2080s to 2010s in the U.S. And he doesn't say anything like 3-4F in his 1988 testimony either.

[skierinvermont]

The fact that you are unable to admit it when predictions based on AGW don't pan out sure makes it look like you have blinders on. It's ok to acknowledge that the scientists (and science) aren't perfect.

I have "admitted" that Hansen's 1988 model slightly overpredicted warming over the last 20 years (I don't consider this an admission since I tend to disagree with Hansen and side with the more conservative scientists so I am actually quite eager to point this out). I find it hard to believe that he actually predicted 3-4F of warming in the U.S. from the 1980s to the 2010s since this is at odds with his own published work and his testimony just 2 years later.

Find me the actual 1986 testimony. This could be one of those cases where the newspaper left out certain qualifying words like "could." He might have said something like "the U.S. will probably warm around 2F from the 1980s to the 2010s but as high as 3-4F in the most extreme scenario."

And then the newspapers run with the headline of "As much as 3-4F of warming by 2010" while neglecting to mention that the most probable scenario is 2F. Happens all the time. I just want to see the actual 1986 testimony before making judgment.

[tacoman25]

The only source for this appears to be an extremely overly-dramaticized article from a miami newspaper.. I want to actually see the 1986 testimony before I believe that.

His 1988 paper shows only around 2F of warming from the 2080s to 2010s in the U.S. And he doesn't say anything like 3-4F in his 1988 testimony either.

How exactly is this "extremely overly-dramticized"???

Hansen said the average U.S. temperature had risen 1 to 2 degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020.

These are the exact printed words from that article with the numbers given by Hansen. Newspapers don't just make up numbers. It's possible they left out other things he said, but that seems pretty straight forward.

Since U.S. temperatures rose 1 to 2 degrees from 1958 to 1986 (28 years), is it so unbelievable that Hansen might believe at that time that the U.S. would warm an additional 3 to 4 over the next 30 years with increased forcing?

[skierinvermont]

Since U.S. temperatures rose 1 to 2 degrees from 1958 to 1986 (28 years), is it so unbelievable that Hansen might believe at that time that the U.S. would warm an additional 3 to 4 over the next 30 years with increased forcing?

Yeah because it's totally at odds with his 1988 testimony and his 1988 paper.

[skierinvermont]

I'm also coming across big contradictions between different sources.. some say 3-4F by the 2010s. Some say 2-4F by the 2000s.

Another one I just found said "nearly 2F in 20 years" (Milwaukee Journal)

None of these statements are consistent, which leads me to wonder what was actually said.

[LakeEffectKing]

I'm also coming across big contradictions between different sources.. some say 3-4F by the 2010s. Some say 2-4F by the 2000s.

Another one I just found said "nearly 2F in 20 years" (Milwaukee Journal)

None of these statements are consistent, which leads me to wonder what was actually said.

It is an awesome CYA tactic wrt difficult "forecasts"....lay out an ambiguous (broad) forecast for 2100....sprinkle in a little doom and gloom (to feed the extreme enviro nutjobs a bone or two) and then hindcast as you go to fit the hypothesis/forecast!! Then allow a few fringe organizations to massage the "doom du jour" spout it to the public and allow it to go unaddressed.................

Really good science (and the communication of it) if you ask me.... :arrowhead:

[tacoman25]

I'm also coming across big contradictions between different sources.. some say 3-4F by the 2010s. Some say 2-4F by the 2000s.

Another one I just found said "nearly 2F in 20 years" (Milwaukee Journal)

None of these statements are consistent, which leads me to wonder what was actually said.

Are they all talking about the U.S., or some about the globe? Because in the original 1986 article cited, he said 2F in 20 years for the globe. 3-4F by the 2010s for the U.S.

Regardless, all of those predictions were too high. Based on the body of evidence, it's clear Hansen's predictions were too extreme/high in the 20-30 year time frame.

[skierinvermont]

Are they all talking about the U.S., or some about the globe? Because in the original 1986 article cited, he said 2F in 20 years for the globe. 3-4F by the 2010s for the U.S.

Regardless, all of those predictions were too high. Based on the body of evidence, it's clear Hansen's predictions were too extreme/high in the 20-30 year time frame.

You're right the latter one was global. My suspicion is that these were not the most probable scenario but rather the high end scenario which newspapers then took and presented as the forecast. Media reporting of science is notoriously bad. It's at odds with his 1981 paper, his 1988 testimony, and his 1988 paper. His 1981 paper is actually more conservative than mainstream IPCC now using a climate sensitivity of 2.8C/doubled CO2. vs IPCC 2-4.5 best guess 3.

[tacoman25]

You're right the latter one was global. My suspicion is that these were not the most probable scenario but rather the high end scenario which newspapers then took and presented as the forecast. Media reporting of science is notoriously bad. It's at odds with his 1981 paper, his 1988 testimony, and his 1988 paper. His 1981 paper is actually more conservative than mainstream IPCC now using a climate sensitivity of 2.8C/doubled CO2. vs IPCC 2-4.5 best guess 3.

This seems to happen with Hansen a lot.

All I'm saying is look at the body of evidence, look at his activisism, and put the pieces together. I mean, if you look at how he handled the 1988 testimony to Congress, Hansen was clearly doing his part in the sensationalism. And I don't think the numbers quoted (2F globally by 2006, 3-4F in U.S. by 2010s) are really "at odds" with his papers. They simply don't demonstrate the full error range. But I don't think they are far off from what he thought would most likely occur.

[ORH_wxman]

This was a good one from Hansen just this year...

"Certainly, it is interesting that 2010 was so warm despite the presence of a La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet, but far more important than any particular year's ranking are the decadal trends," Hansen said.

Apparently he is unaware of lag in ENSO.

[skierinvermont]

This seems to happen with Hansen a lot.

All I'm saying is look at the body of evidence, look at his activisism, and put the pieces together. I mean, if you look at how he handled the 1988 testimony to Congress, Hansen was clearly doing his part in the sensationalism. And I don't think the numbers quoted (2F globally by 2006, 3-4F in U.S. by 2010s) are really "at odds" with his papers. They simply don't demonstrate the full error range. But I don't think they are far off from what he thought would most likely occur.

No 3-4F in the U.S. by the 2010s is much higher than his paper which looks to be about 2F (so error ranged 1.5-2.5F). I've read his 1988 testimony and it seems to be a pretty straightforward statement of what was known and what wasn't known. I don't see any evidence of sensationalism, and the predictions were pretty mainstream both for then and by current standards. He does have a tendency to be a bit more extreme, and to make colorful comments to the press.

There are certainly examples of this without using newspaper clippings on his 1986 testimony which just don't make any sense.

[BethesdaWX]

This was a good one from Hansen just this year...

"Certainly, it is interesting that 2010 was so warm despite the presence of a La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet, but far more important than any particular year's ranking are the decadal trends," Hansen said.

Apparently he is unaware of lag in ENSO.

I think he knew about it, and was just trying to make an influence before the inevidable drop. Otherwise he needs to be fired pronto...no climate scientist cannot be aware of actual physics.

The La Nina drop blew away the El Nino spike, even though the Nina was weaker by a long shot.

[skierinvermont]

This was a good one from Hansen just this year...

"Certainly, it is interesting that 2010 was so warm despite the presence of a La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet, but far more important than any particular year's ranking are the decadal trends," Hansen said.

Apparently he is unaware of lag in ENSO.

Well technically the Nina certainly did influence the second half of the year... the second half was .2C cooler than the first half and we fell nearly .4C from start to finish. Years like 2005 didn't see such a drop off. It's certainly a bit slanted to not mention we started off with a strong Nino though. But remember the context of the statement was the ranking of years, and in terms of setting records, it's more ideal to have a full year Nino than one which subsides into Nina.

And he's right about solar and the importance of decadal trends.

[BethesdaWX]

Well technically the Nina certainly did influence the second half of the year... the second half was .2C cooler than the first half and we fell nearly .4C from start to finish. Years like 2005 didn't see such a drop off. It's certainly a bit slanted to not mention we started off with a strong Nino though. But remember the context of the statement was the ranking of years, and in terms of setting records, it's more ideal to have a full year Nino than one which subsides into Nina.

And he's right about solar and the importance of decadal trends.

We have fallen about 0.7C since the peak of the Spike...we beat El Nino spike with an even bigger drop, despite the fact that the Nina was weaker.

For a time we were almost 1C warmer last yr than this yr.

[ORH_wxman]

Well technically the Nina certainly did influence the second half of the year... the second half was .2C cooler than the first half and we fell nearly .4C from start to finish. Years like 2005 didn't see such a drop off. It's certainly a bit slanted to not mention we started off with a strong Nino though.

And he's right about solar and the importance of decadal trends.

He would have been more accurate if he said "this year was influenced by a strong El Nino"...mentioning La Nina and not mentioning the El Nino is just plain idiotic and clearly he is pressing his agenda. I wonder if he mentioned why 2008 was so cold despite the weakening La Nina.

[skierinvermont]

He would have been more accurate if he said "this year was influenced by a strong El Nino"...mentioning La Nina and not mentioning the El Nino is just plain idiotic and clearly he is pressing his agenda. I wonder if he mentioned why 2008 was so cold despite the weakening La Nina.

Well like I said, it's a bit slanted. But remember the context of the statement was what creates a record year.. and in that context a full year Nino is better than one which heads into Nina.

[BethesdaWX]

He would have been more accurate if he said "this year was influenced by a strong El Nino"...mentioning La Nina and not mentioning the El Nino is just plain idiotic and clearly he is pressing his agenda. I wonder if he mentioned why 2008 was so cold despite the weakening La Nina.

If I recall Hansen was pretty quiet during 2008... and he is somewhat quiet now...

[skierinvermont]

If I recall Hansen was pretty quiet during 2008... and he is somewhat quiet now...

A quick search finds dozens of interviews, congressional testimony and scientific papers published by Hansen in 2008.

[BethesdaWX]

A quick search finds dozens of interviews, congressional testimony and scientific papers published by Hansen in 2008.

Meaning I didn't hear As much from him in the News or via NOAA...not that he was in bed all day

lol

[skierinvermont]

Meaning I didn't hear As much from him in the News or via NOAA...not that he was in bed all day

lol

There are hundreds of newspaper articles, some pretty major ones too. His testimony to Congress and his letter to the President were both widely covered. He had lots of speaking engagements on the 20 year anniversary of his 1988 testimony which were widely covered as well.

[LakeEffectKing]

This was a good one from Hansen just this year...

"Certainly, it is interesting that 2010 was so warm despite the presence of a La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet, but far more important than any particular year's ranking are the decadal trends," Hansen said.

Apparently he is unaware of lag in ENSO.

Or the uncertainties in length of lag corresponding to solar effects......the same solar effects that many in the AGW camp have attributed as having negligable impacts on the longer term trend....