James Hansen’s climate models versus observations 1958-2015
James Hansen’s climate models versus observations 1958-2015
Jan-‐Erik Solheim, professor (emeritus), University of Tromsø, Norway
Projections based on climate models are used to convince politicians to reduce the emissions of CO2 to save the world from overheating. The latest warning is that a global temperature increase of 2.7K is the lower limit possible in 2100, if the emission control works as proposed for the Paris meeting.
I will describe how climate models developed by James Hansen et al. (1988) have failed to predict how the global temperature has changed until now.
If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains – no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.
James Hansen, 2007, in “Super Models, Old King Coal II, & Civil Disobedience”
Coal-fired power stations are death factories. Close them. James Hansen, 2009. theguardian.com
Figure 1. Global temperature predictions based on 3 scenarios (A, B and C) as described in the text. The hatched area represents the maximum temperature in the present (Holocene – 6000 yr ago) and previous (Eemian-120 000 yr ago) interglacials (1). The solid black curve represents observations.
Increasing vulgarity in science publication
As the Paris climate talks are drawing close, we will see a rapidly increasing number of sensational news stories based on shoddily researched papers and reports on many climate change issues.
Two such sensational news have come to our attention; one claims that the Monsoon is the “top threat to India’s economy” and future development (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-01/climate-change-is-top-threat-to-india-s-economy-modi-aide-says), the other claims that “Climate change threatens 55 million in India’s coastal areas.” (http://m.ndtv.com/india-news/climate-change-threatens-55-million-in-indias-coastal-areas-report-1241649).
As both issues are central to our scientific research, we were deeply shocked to read those stories, which represent typical horror scenarios spread by lobbyists for the purpose of scaring people, and with a total disrespect for scientific observational facts. This makes those two papers not only a disgrace to science but also to geoethical principles.
To all editors acting as gatekeepers
By Pamela Matlack-Klein
Over the past several years I have noticed a distressing tendency of highly respected scientific journals to avoid publishing papers that disagree with the IPCC’s concept of Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change. As this notion has been arrived at with very little actual field work, rather relying heavily on computer modeling, I find it difficult to accept as “fact,” most especially in light of the findings of scientists working in the field, observing and collecting real data.To date, the majority of predictions of these models have failed to come to pass.
The Maldives stubbornly refuse to sink under the waves, (N.A. Morner), the ice pack and glaciers in the Arctic and Antarctica are not shrinking, (Nicola Scafetta and Adriano Mazzarella: “The Arctic and Antarctic Sea-Ice Area Index Records versus Measured and Modeled Temperature Data”. Advances in Meteorology, Volume 2015) and, quite contrary to public opinion (hardly acceptable scientific method), the temperature of the Earth has not risen in any statistically significant way in over a decade.
Even this Ben Santer study shows no significant warming trend for the two decades since 1995, as shown by this graph. (more…)
Independent Committee on Geoethics 