Comments on: Thoughts on Hansen et al 1988

By: Hansen Update « Climate Audit

Hansen Update « Climate Audit — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:35:16 +0000

[...] January 2008, I discussed here and here how Hansen’s projections compared against the most recent RSS and MSU data, noting a [...]

By: Hansen’s “Evidence” Of AGW | simonjmeath

Hansen’s “Evidence” Of AGW | simonjmeath — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 11:46:23 +0000

[...] ‘Steve McIntyre – Thoughts on Hansen et al 1988′ http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/16/thoughts-on-hansen-et-al-1988/ [...]

By: oneuniverse

oneuniverse — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 13:25:19 +0000

The link to Hansen's 1988 oral testimony to Congress is broken. A copy is currently available here.

By: A little known 20 40 year old climate change prediction by Dr. James Hansen – that failed badly | Watts Up With That?

Wed, 30 Mar 2011 03:48:26 +0000

[...] that Dr. Hansen presented to Congress in 1988, as shown below. But these model projections are very well known. I’m talking about something else entirely. Hansen's 3 model scenarios compared to [...]

By: NASA climate programs being eyed for the budget axe | Watts Up With That?

NASA climate programs being eyed for the budget axe | Watts Up With That? — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 03:02:42 +0000

[...] have? Pronouncements about death trains, expert testimony for climate vandals, failed predictions, failed models, and a questionable GISTEMP dataset, or a continued manned spaceflight [...]

By: Michael Wallace

Michael Wallace — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 22:50:11 +0000

Can someone tell me the actual calculated value of the 30 year GMST for the period 1950-1980? By this I mean the value for this used by Hansen in 1988 and for years beyond. Even better, please point me to a graph or table that shows the running 30-year GMST over a period of time that encompasses 1950-1990.
My understanding is that the equivalent 30 yr GMST for 1960-1990 is about 15 degrees C.
I am trying to independently do a comparison of predictions similar to Dr. McIntyre’s, although not as sophisticated. Still, cannot compare Hansen 1988 to anything more current without these GMSTs. And I’ve looked fairly hard but no luck so far.
thanks

By: A little known 20 year old climate change prediction by Dr. James Hansen – that failed badly

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:11:55 +0000

[...] that Dr. Hansen presented to Congress in 1988, as shown below. But these model projections are very well known. I’m talking about something else entirely. Hansen’s 3 model scenarios compared to temperature [...]

By: Krijgt Kopenhagen volle laag Gore-Effect? » Climategate: feiten en duiding in het klimaatdebat

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:19:30 +0000

[...] airconditioner uitgezet Flashback 23 juni 1988. James Hansen houdt zijn historische klimaatalarmistische toespraak voor het Amerikaanse congres. Niet toevallig is deze datum gekozen: juni is de warmste maand in [...]

By: Mikkel

Mikkel — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 05:35:51 +0000

Let me being by apologizing if this has already been brought up. I tried to skim the 199 previous posts but could have missed it.
Firstly I think it is fair to say that Hansen had Scenario B as his most likely in his article at least where it is stated pretty squarely. This could be different from his appearance in congress – I wouldnt know.
On a different side my main point is to draw attention to how we have actually been following Scenario A for the past 20 years. In terms of GHG emissions that is. According to Hansen 1988 he for Scenario A expects an increase in emissions of 1,5% yearly. According to IPCC 2007 we have gone from 39,4 to 49 GtCO2-eq from 1990-2004 which is a 1,6% yearly increase in emissions. Similarly Hansen 1988 cites 345 pmvv CO2 in the atmosphere with 1,5 increase annually in a business-as-usal world. According to CDIAC it is presently at 383,9 which would require an average annual increase of 1,945 pmvv.
If we have actually been following Scenario A in terms of emissions wouldn’t it then be fair to expect a better fit in terms of temperature development? I cant say if it follows B or C better but it is certainly not A by any standards.
Sorry again if I got it wrong or repeated the issue.

Steve: the difference between A and B is mainly in the CFCs, which are a lot less than A. So B is the most reasonable one to judge against.

By: Craig Loehle

Craig Loehle — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:30:29 +0000

It seems to me that there are numerous regular posters on CA who are highly qualified in math, statistics, programming, and clear thinking. Among other topics. The real proof is in the analyses done here, not in the credentials.