In an informative RealClimate post today, @ClimateOfGavin estimates how temperatures would have changed over time if Hansen’s model used our current best estimate of observed radiative forcing: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/06/30-years-after-hansens-testimony/ … 7/8 pic.twitter.com/waBeoypy0v
‘Father of Global Warming’ Scientist Finally Admits Theory Is Wrong
The scientist widely known as the “Father of Global Warming” has admitted for the first time that data used to promote his climate change theory was false and fraudulently manipulated by Al Gore to suit an agenda.
In 1988 the former NASA scientist, James Hansen, testified to Congress during a hearing on global warming organized by then-Congressman Al Gore to produce scientific models based on a number of different scenarios that could impact the planet.
According to Hansen, Al Gore took the data provided in a “worst-case scenario” and intentionally twisted it, rebranding it as “Global Warming,” making tens of millions of dollars in the process.
The model was titled “Scenario B” and was one of many provided to Congress by Hansen, however it left out significant factors meaning it didn’t reflect real-world conditions. This didn’t stop Al Gore and climate alarmists using the data to mislead millions of people all over the world.
However a new study that compares real-world data to the original Scenario B model — finding no correlation — has received Hansen’s backing, with the “Father of global warming” admitting he is “devastated” by the way his data has been used by climate alarmists.
Real World data shows “the science is not settled”
The dire climate prediction that was taken from Hansen’s data model “significantly overstates the warming” observed in the real world since the 1980s, according to the new analysis.
Western Journal reports: Economist Ross McKitrick and climate scientist John Christy found observed warming trends match the low end of what Hansen told Congress during a hearing on global warming organized by then-Congressman Al Gore.
“Climate modelers will object that this explanation doesn’t fit the theories about climate change,” the two wrote.
“But those were the theories Hansen used, and they don’t fit the data.
“The bottom line is, climate science as encoded in the models is far from settled.”
Cato Institute climate scientists Patrick Michaels and Ryan Maue wrote that “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,” Michaels and Maue wrote in The Wall Street Journal in June.
The WSJ op-ed set off a fierce debate over the accuracy of Hansen’s predictions.
Several media reports interviewing climate scientists claimed Hansen’s predictions — issued in 1988 — were pretty much correct.
Hansen’s dire global warming predictions turned 30 this year, sparking fawning media coverage of their accuracy.
Hansen, so-called “godfather” of global warming even told The Associated Press “I don’t want to be right in that sense.”
Some scientists moved the goalposts and argued even though Hansen’s temperature predictions were off, he got the radiative forcing from greenhouse gas emissions correct.
Zeke Hausfather@hausfathIn 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. 8/8
However, McKitrick and Christy’s analysis takes into account such objections, pointing out that Hansen’s prediction of carbon dioxide emissions was actually close to what was observed — there just wasn’t much warming.
It turns out Hansen’s worst-case scenario projection of global warming, known as Scenario B, only takes carbon dioxide emissions into account, but still showed too much warming, McKitrick and Christy wrote.
“What really matters is the trend over the forecast interval, and this is where the problems become visible,” McKitrick and Christy wrote.
Hansen’s conclusion, they wrote, “significantly overstates the warming.”
Read more at yournewswire.com
Trackback from your site.
Science or Fiction?
| #
«It turns out Hansen’s worst-case scenario projection of global warming, known as Scenario B»
This post is misinterpreting this issue. For example, the above statement is false.
Hansen’s wosrst case scenario was his «business as usual scenario» scenario A.
I think you should withdraw this post.
https://climatechange.procon.org/sourcefiles/1988_Hansen_Senate_Testimony.pdf
Reply
Alan Thorpe
| #
The AP article gives entirely the opposite view about Hanson and it says he wishes he had not been so right about global warming. Who do we believe?
Reply
Thomas Ryan
| #
So is Hanson the father of Global Warming or McKitrick?
Reply
Squidly
| #
Maurice Strong .. actually…
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Correct sqids.
Strong and Thatcher, Thatcher set up East Anglia jones et al,…
Hanson was Thatchers much quoted American expert, she was not an environmentalist, she was a union smasher, and the coal producing unions were holding the country to ransom.
Power cuts, 3 day working weeks, importation of Polish coal just keeping the country on life support.
Then the battle of Orgreave and the final humiliation for unionism.
Lived through, and watched it all.
Reply
JEyon
| #
Ross McKitrick – Father of Global Warming?!!!
Gore became rich due to his CO2 GW stance?!!!
etc
too many obvious errors of fact – confused logic – website need to rename itself – Purveyor of False Facts
Reply
Joseph A Olson
| #
There is NO greenhouse gas and this fake Alarmist/Lukewarmists debate would have ended a decade ago if the Luke Little Warmists were not controlled opposition LIARS.
“Spencer Sorcery on Magic Gas” at FauxScienceSlayer(.)com
Reply
Johan Arve
| #
Hansen predicted 1.5 degrees for scenario A. The result was 0.37 degrees.
How would that result prove him right.
Reply
Lloyd
| #
KASPERSKY claimes you Identification certification on this site is out of date, says it leaves us open to Viruses.
Reply
Squidly
| #
Fortunately, for us Software Engineers and Computer Scientists, we know that just because a certificate for SSL has expired, doesn’t mean we are “open to viruses”. Sadly, there are those out there, apparently Kaspersky, that like to make bold claims that lay people are simply ignorant of. Oh, hmm, sounds a lot like the AGW thing, doesn’t it?
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Lloyd, our hosting company made an error in not automatically renewing our SSL certificate. They have been very apologetic and fixed the problem without charge. Nonsense for anyone to claim our site security was at risk.
Reply
Dr Pete Sudbury
| #
This post is well below even this website’s usual distorted science. I agree with the other comment that says it should be taken down.
It deliberately (and frankly maliciously) misquotes Hansen, who was right about the serious risks of GHGs and is only sorry he turned out to be right, and climate change (of which global warming is a massive component) is affected by human activity.
Looking at Hansen’s original projections: “A” was exponential increase in all GHGs (which didn’t happen), “B” linear increase, “C” linear with reductions from y2k. The actual outcome follows “B”, but slightly lower, because Hansen used a sensitivity of 4.1C per doubling of CO2e, whereas we now know the figure is nearer 3C per doubling.
Here’s what an objective scientific summary would say (it has graphs, which this site doesn’t allow in comments):
https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.htm
Reply
Squidly
| #
Oh puleeez Dr. Dumbass… quit being such a freaking DUMBASS!
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
https://www.linkedin.com/in/doctorpete
Green-peace ”’expert” discussing balance.
Worthless handwaving parasite, get a real job..
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Phuck off with your spam Dougie.
Can you not leave a single thread alone.
Reply