Climate Change

[Jonesboy]

11 minutes ago, Old Student said:

Um, yes it does. Higher CO2 levels do produce warmer winters, the past winter was one of the warmest on record. Notwithstanding that there were any record cold temperatures measured.  The warmth of the winter is an average, the record cold temperatures were events.  And my point about El Nino is that during years when there is an El Nino, the Pacific Ocean is warmer, so it absorbs more CO2 which decreases the amount of increase in CO2 in the atmosphere temporarily.

 

El Nino is a natural phenomenon (actually ocean not weather), but its timing and intensity and cycle are affected by global warming.

We have not had record cold winters, we've set cold records in winters.  There's a difference.  If you cannot understand that difference, then forget talking about the climate, which is usually studied on a decadal or even millennial timespan.  The difference between a cold winter and a winter during which there were record colds, is that a cold winter is cold over the timespan of the whole winter, and we haven't had any of those lately, the past winter was IRRC third warmest on record.  What we have had is some records set for cold, i.e. days when the temperature was colder than for that day any time on record.  That's due to the instabilities in the winds that circle around the Arctic, which cause what is reported in the weather as polar vortex.  And the fact that that happens more frequently than it used to is due to the warming of the Arctic -- i.e. due to loss of permanent Arctic ice.

 

This stuff is done by science, not by shouting.  Warm an ocean, gases dissolve better, cool an Arctic, produce winds corresponding to the permanent downdraft because cold air sinks.  NASA has a great video of Rossby waves if you want to see how the Arctic causes weather. And this site is a continuously running blog on the Arctic Oscillation.  Read up if you want to know more about how weather and climate interact.

 

 

Now if you want to talk history, we can do that as well. I will start with  the 1950's

 

The Heatwave Of April-May 1952

Posted on May 2, 2019 by tonyheller

From April 26 to May 5, 1952 there was a remarkable heatwave centered over the Northern Plains, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.  North Dakota was over 90 degrees nine out of ten days, and reached 99 degrees on April 28.

Winnipeg was almost 25 degrees hotter than Phoenix on April 28, 1952.

28 Apr 1952, Page 1 – Argus-Leader at Newspapers.com

 

It is 55 F today in Sioux Falls by comparison.

[Old Student]

3 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

Nobody is shouting.

I'm referring to the massive pasting of stuff in exclamatory print without apparent science grounding.  Over on another place in the forum, I'm being told that some of the neidan stuff requires patient cultivation of a foundation.  Did you do that with your scientific understanding of the climate?

 

5 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

Again, just look at the science and you will see. The Winter has been wet not dry, cold not warm. The Arctic is not melting it is growing.

I do look at the science. I posted that link to the PNAS special issue on tipping points, in response to, I think, voidisyinyang. Did any of you "look at the science" types read it?  It provides a pretty comprehensive explanation of what to expect as each climate phenomenon changes, and changes for all intents and purposes permanently.

T

his past winter was wet. It was not cold. It was warm.  I'm from California, so I would laugh at your suggestion that we are not getting droughts except that too many people have been killed already in fires so we don't think drought is a laughing matter here. The Arctic sea ice is contracting, and NASA has pictures of the contraction. It is not expanding.

[Old Student]

1 minute ago, Jonesboy said:

Now if you want to talk history, we can do that as well. I will start with  the 1950's

Again, like I told you, if you cannot understand the difference between the warmth of a summer and a warm event, or the warmth of a winter and a cold event, then you absolutely cannot understand climate science.

[Jonesboy]

4 minutes ago, Old Student said:

I'm referring to the massive pasting of stuff in exclamatory print without apparent science grounding.  Over on another place in the forum, I'm being told that some of the neidan stuff requires patient cultivation of a foundation.  Did you do that with your scientific understanding of the climate?

 

I do look at the science. I posted that link to the PNAS special issue on tipping points, in response to, I think, voidisyinyang. Did any of you "look at the science" types read it?  It provides a pretty comprehensive explanation of what to expect as each climate phenomenon changes, and changes for all intents and purposes permanently.

T

his past winter was wet. It was not cold. It was warm.  I'm from California, so I would laugh at your suggestion that we are not getting droughts except that too many people have been killed already in fires so we don't think drought is a laughing matter here. The Arctic sea ice is contracting, and NASA has pictures of the contraction. It is not expanding.

 

Massive pasting of charts and climate articles that have been saying the arctic is melting since the 1920's is not shouting. I can't control the font.

 

I rarely read anything voidisyinyang posts. He lost me at methane bombs.

 

Oh, so now let's talk about California droughts and fires.. Another fun topic of misinformation.

 

SCIENCE : Man Made California Droughts!

Posted on February 28, 2018 by tonyheller

“Scientists who study the West’s long-term climate patterns say that California has had multiple droughts of 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years — and two severe “megadroughts” of 180 years and 240 years.”

Graphic: California’s droughts in the past 1,200 years – The Mercury News

 

The New York Times used to know this.

History Of Ancient Fires

Studying fire marks in giant sequoias, Thomas W. Swetnam and co-workers have discovered that major conflagrations sweeping across many mountain ranges in California and the Southwest were a long a common feature, occurring at least twice a decade and apparently linked to oceanic currents much farther south

In Unexpected Places, Clues to Ancient and Future Climate; Warming? Tree Rings Say Not Yet – The New York Times

Severe Ancient Droughts: A Warning to California – The New York Times

But as technology improved, the New York Times got stupider. They announced the California permanent drought in 2016, right before California’s wettest year on record.

California Braces for Unending Drought – The New York Times

Thanks El Niño, But California’s Drought Is Probably Forever | WIRED

[Jonesboy]

Now, let's look at a little history of forest fires in California and the U.S average.

 

US Forest Fires Continue Well Below Average

Posted on August 6, 2018 by tonyheller

So far this year, US forest fire burn acreage has been 42% of the 1926-2018 average, and is down more than 90% from the 1930 peak.

Spreadsheet

The summer of 1930 was extremely hot and dry, so no surprise they had  a lot of forest fires.

04 Aug 1930, Page 1 – Moberly Monitor-Index at Newspapers.com

psi-193008.gif (690×488)

[Old Student]

2 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

So yes that it precisely why music provides the "formal logic" to solve the foundation of reality.

Now you are claiming that this foundation that is noncommutative can then just be "embedded" back into commutative symmetric math via the Poisson Bracket. What Connes emphasizes is that renormalization has been wrong because of missing this noncommutative truth as logic. And as the overview video I posted states - noncommutative geometry has to rely on each force of physics having a different noncommutative spacetime.

Not really, it was an example of how a noncommutative geometry allowed the spectrum to completely define the geometry of the manifold.

 

Not sure what to make of "renormalization has been wrong". Renormalization is a technique.

 

2 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

Now you are claiming that this foundation that is noncommutative can then just be "embedded" back into commutative symmetric math via the Poisson Bracket.

No, I didn't claim that.  The noncommutative geometry Connes creates is his perturbation semigroup of operators which is an extension of the "commutative" geometry, so there is a natural embedding of the latter into the former.  The "commutative" geometry is within the noncommutative geometry, not the other way around.

2 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

So in WEstern science we Assume that the foundation of reality is random. Ian Stewart states that in quantum physics this is not necessarily true. Here is how quantum physics professor (previously of Hampshire College where I took quantum mechanics) describes our true perception of reality:

 

(followed by quote from professor)

Seriously?  A quantum physics professor said that?  That sounds like Penrose's theory on quantum events accounting for the brain space problem.  UMass would have been a better place to take quantum physics.

 

Penrose's theory exists because there is a very real problem with current neuron theory -- it does not account for the storage capacity of the brain.  So Penrose postulated that maybe some quantum phenomenon was accounting for the "computing" as a way to increase the computing power and account for the storage.

 

It's an interesting theory, but I don't agree with it.  There is far more possible "space" in the brain after one discards the notion that all the brain does is fire synapses in response to signals based on the synapse long term potentiation or long term depression.

 

Still, it's strange that it would show up in a quantum physics class, other than in passing.

[Old Student]

10 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

Now, let's look at a little history of forest fires in California and the U.S average.

One word of advice: Stay away from Tony Heller.  He isn't an authority on the climate.

 

California had two record fires last fall.  Both burned more acreage than any fire in California history (the second surpassed the first).  One of them set a record for the number of people killed.  As for this season, as you and I have already agreed, we had a wet winter.  That means that there have been less fires so far this calendar year.  But don't get comfortable. It also means that there will be more grass and undergrowth.  If we have another high brought on by a contraction in the Arctic Oscillation like last year, we will get another long dry season going all the way to November, and the high causes Diablo and Santa Ana winds that are hot, dry, and very high speed. Last year, the Diablo winds hit 80 mph, that's what caused the fires.

 

Telling someone from California that we haven't had much in the way of forest fires isn't just climate denial. It contradicts experienced reality. Do you understand?  There's no way I'm gonna believe Tony Heller instead of my lyin' eyes.  Over and out.

[Jonesboy]

22 minutes ago, Old Student said:

One word of advice: Stay away from Tony Heller.  He isn't an authority on the climate.

 

California had two record fires last fall.  Both burned more acreage than any fire in California history (the second surpassed the first).  One of them set a record for the number of people killed.  As for this season, as you and I have already agreed, we had a wet winter.  That means that there have been less fires so far this calendar year.  But don't get comfortable. It also means that there will be more grass and undergrowth.  If we have another high brought on by a contraction in the Arctic Oscillation like last year, we will get another long dry season going all the way to November, and the high causes Diablo and Santa Ana winds that are hot, dry, and very high speed. Last year, the Diablo winds hit 80 mph, that's what caused the fires.

 

Telling someone from California that we haven't had much in the way of forest fires isn't just climate denial. It contradicts experienced reality. Do you understand?  There's no way I'm gonna believe Tony Heller instead of my lyin' eyes.  Over and out.

 

Argue the charts and data. Disparaging someone who disagrees with a point of view is wrong. He has offered to debate any of the climate scientist and they all decline. He has some really good debates on twitter with what you would consider real climate gurus.

 

The 1930's had more fire acreage fire damage than the last two years. 2017 would be the 4th worse since 2004. Always interesting when they just use present data but here is a chart for you.

https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article221788220.html

 

The main issue has to do with forests service, not with climate change increasing fires or fire acreage.

 

Also, wind doesn't cause fires. There is no evidence that increased CO2 increases wind just in California.  I just want to throw that out there...

 

This type of argument is the same thing about storms being stronger, they are not, more hurricanes, there are not.

 

The climate changes, there is no doubt but if you were to listen to all the experts, Al Core the 99% of scientists.. The arctic would be melted a few years ago and New York should already be under water. This has been going on for over a 100 years and just like in the past it was all wrong.

 

Quote

Telling someone from California that we haven't had much in the way of forest fires isn't just climate denial. It contradicts experienced reality

 

This right here is what is dangerous. A forest fire in your life time does not make it climate change.

 

A hurricane in New York City does not make it climate change regardless of what Obama said.

 

History has shown greater fires in the past.

 

History has shown in the 1950's 5 hurricanes hitting New York and snow drifts 100 ft high in the city during winter.

 

A few month ago CNN showed hail in the summer as proof of climate change. Said you were crazy with that evidence to deny climate change.

 

People are being brainwashed... 

Edited May 10, 2019 by Jonesboy

[joeblast]

53 minutes ago, Old Student said:

Thanks for the correction.

 

My turn to correct. It's simple physics, man.  The Arctic Oscillation is complex, but largely its contractions and expansions are a result of the condition of the permafrost and monsoon cycles in Siberia and the underlying Arctic vortex is caused by the cold air sinking due to the ice in the polar ice cap.  Cold air sinks.  Sinking air is a high.  Winds spin around a high. Got it? No cold air, no high, winds aren't as predictable.  There are two other places where that happens on the earth, the Antarctic, and the Tibetan plateau, although that used to do that much more than it does today (say 11,000 years ago).

 

I really need to ask, being kind of new to this site. Why all the climate denial?  Is that a Daoist thing now?

hehe...firstly, there is no denial of the climate or that the climate changes, and generally I detest buzzwords which are used as a tool of deception specifically inserted by those who want that extra tranche of tax revenues from the populace.  (or perhaps at a higher level, merely to keep the populace repressed sufficiently so as to have them continually fight amongst themselves.)

 

the matter is by and large over the vastly outstated warming coefficient of co2 that frauds like James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann et al have had a hand in promulgating.  unfortunately the infection is a bit too present in too many places and the groupthink is really just over the top, nowhere worse than in academia, where far too many hopped on to the bandwagon for grant money.

 

your attempted "correction" is nothing but putting the cart before the horse, unfortunately, whereas mine flows from first principles

[Kar3n]

It's already been established that California's wildfires last year were result of the forest service in CA not doing their job.

[Old Student]

5 minutes ago, joeblast said:

co2 that frauds like James Hansen

I met the NASA Goddard team in 1984, we were at a fluids conference and our poster was next to theirs.  I looked at their data, I looked at their math. You're going to have to do more to convince me that it was some kind of fraud.

 

Corrections are corrections, mine is equally from first principles. Picking and choosing the physics you are going to believe isn't science.

[ralis]

3 minutes ago, Kar3n said:

It's already been established that California's wildfires last year were result of the forest service in CA not doing their job.

 

They failed to rake the leaves as Trump suggested.  Furthermore, forest management is much more complex, given the complex nature of that part of the biosphere.

[ralis]

7 minutes ago, Old Student said:

I met the NASA Goddard team in 1984, we were at a fluids conference and our poster was next to theirs.  I looked at their data, I looked at their math. You're going to have to do more to convince me that it was some kind of fraud.

 

Corrections are corrections, mine is equally from first principles. Picking and choosing the physics you are going to believe isn't science.

 

Joe is still pissed off that Dr. Hansen dissed his presupposition/pet theory that solar energy is the only driver behind AGW and not CO2. 

Edited May 10, 2019 by ralis

[Earl Grey]

3 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Joe is still pissed off that Dr. Hansen dissed his presupposition that solar energy is the only driver behind AGW and not CO2. 

 

 

[joeblast]

29 minutes ago, Old Student said:

I met the NASA Goddard team in 1984, we were at a fluids conference and our poster was next to theirs.  I looked at their data, I looked at their math. You're going to have to do more to convince me that it was some kind of fraud.

 

Corrections are corrections, mine is equally from first principles. Picking and choosing the physics you are going to believe isn't science.

well if you're one of those true believers that "knows the government's story on 911 was true because they were in new york on that day," zealots have already proven to me that no amount of data or analysis one shows them will really be considered if it contradicts the religious orthodoxy, mind's already made up and there's simply no reason to alter course.  I have no attachment to convincing people, I just point out obvious flaws and bullshit, sometimes people dont like it because proper progressives shouldnt ever say anything that goes against the appeal to authority    I'd think first principles would have meant something, but apparently that's a very.....fluid concept...but for some reason people want to hate on the sun and think its variability is so little that we can basically ignore it and focus solely on what humans are doing.  ("their stuff looked ok in 1984" was kinda funny though)

 

at any rate, its only a matter of time before the data overwhelms the conjecture - and co2 catastrophe is indeed a conjecture.  the catastrophe part relies entirely on model output and the predictions havent been sound, so its really just a matter of time - it'll be that much quicker if Professor Zharkhova is correct.

Edited May 10, 2019 by joeblast

[joeblast]

16 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Joe is still pissed off that Dr. Hansen dissed his presupposition/pet theory that solar energy is the only driver behind AGW and not CO2. 

must alllllllllllllways misrepresent my positions.  not a new phenomenon.

[joeblast]

13 minutes ago, Earl Grey said:

 

 

speaking of clowns...he'll be lucky to survive the avalanche

[ralis]

10 minutes ago, joeblast said:

well if you're one of those true believers that "knows the government's story on 911 was true because they were in new york on that day," zealots have already proven to me that no amount of data or analysis one shows them will really be considered if it contradicts the religious orthodoxy, mind's already made up and there's simply no reason to alter course.  I have no attachment to convincing people, I just point out obvious flaws and bullshit, sometimes people dont like it because proper progressives shouldnt ever say anything that goes against the appeal to authority    I'd think first principles would have meant something, but apparently that's a very.....fluid concept...but for some reason people want to hate on the sun and think its variability is so little that we can basically ignore it and focus solely on what humans are doing.

 

at any rate, its only a matter of time before the data overwhelms the conjecture - and co2 catastrophe is indeed a conjecture.  the catastrophe part relies entirely on model output and the predictions havent been sound, so its really just a matter of time - it'll be that much quicker if Professor Zharkhova is correct.

 

Predictions are not some Nostradamus prophecy in which believers desperately fit into personal belief systems. Furthermore, confusion ensues whereby one assumes a flat linear predictable outcome which is not the case regarding dynamic systems. Outcomes in the models are of the form x3 (x to the third) if I remember correctly. However, the main point to consider is the function of positive feedback loops in the system which exasperates or amplifies changes. Perhaps Old Student would care to correct my thinking or add to it?

[joeblast]

6 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Predictions are not some Nostradamus prophecy in which believers desperately fit into personal belief systems. Furthermore, confusion ensues whereby one assumes a flat linear predictable outcome which is not the case regarding dynamic systems. Outcomes in the models are of the form x3 (x to the third) if I remember correctly. However, the main point to consider is the function of positive feedback loops in the system which exasperates or amplifies changes. Perhaps Old Student would care to correct my thinking or add to it?

drew does a more convincing job of baffling with bullshit than you do  

 

yeah yeah yeah, if you just keep multiplying everything together, you get something that looks exponential!  we learned that in grade school, ralis.  mathematical constructs that only loosely resemble reality and which dont make good predictions are not the sort of thing you base trillion dollar policy upon, ralis.  you dont leave stuff like that to be dictated by conjecture

[ralis]

1 minute ago, joeblast said:

drew does a more convincing job of baffling with bullshit than you do  

 

yeah yeah yeah, if you just keep multiplying everything together, you get something that looks exponential!  we learned that in grade school, ralis.  mathematical constructs that only loosely resemble reality and which dont make good predictions are not the sort of thing you base trillion dollar policy upon, ralis.  you dont leave stuff like that to be dictated by conjecture

 

I am not convinced by your TV weatherman site where you have been given faulty information.

[joeblast]

3 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

I am not convinced by your TV weatherman site where you have been given faulty information.

I'm not convinced by your globalist half baked statistics that keep getting shown to be lacking every time they're examined closely enough

[ralis]

4 minutes ago, joeblast said:

I'm not convinced by your globalist half baked statistics that keep getting shown to be lacking every time they're examined closely enough

 

So far you only post conjecture and innuendo based on what evidence?  Peer reviewed research? Being able to type and conduct a Google search does by no means make you an authority on AGW! At least I will defer to others that are more knowledgeable than myself, but you have no such humility, whatsoever.

[Jonesboy]

55 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Joe is still pissed off that Dr. Hansen dissed his presupposition/pet theory that solar energy is the only driver behind AGW and not CO2. 

This Dr. Hansen?

 

Another Massively Failed Forecast By James Hansen

Posted on July 29, 2018 by tonyheller

Throughout his career, James Hansen has demonstrated an uncanny ability to be wrong nearly 100% of the time about both the future and the past.

Dr. James E. Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who presented recent data compiled from computer models, said that predicted regional effects of global warming show that the chances of summer drought in the low and middle latitudes would be 1 in 3 by the year 2030, as against 1 in 20 in the 1950’s.

• James Hansen 1988

FEROCIOUS STORMS AND DROUGHT SEEN – The New York Times

The 1950’s had the most persistent droughts on record, with the US in drought about 50% of the time, not 5% as Hansen claimed Since then, and particularly since Hansen’s 1988 forecast, the US has been getting and wetter and droughts have become infrequent.

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Out here in the west, we are having the wettest permanent drought on record, with the rain pouring down day after day – and lots more in the forecast.

Intellicast – Weekly Precipitation in United States

Hansen’s incompetence combined with his air of certainty and total lack of concern for the truth, makes him the perfect Democrat.

 

Or this prediction by Dr. Hansen?

 

Failed Climate Models

NASA’s James Hansen started the global warming scare in earnest, during the very hot summer of 1988.

Until now, scientists have been cautious about attributing rising global temperatures of recent years to the predicted global warming caused by pollutants in the atmosphere, known as the ”greenhouse effect.” But today Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told a Congressional committee that it was 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.

Dr. Hansen, a leading expert on climate change, said in an interview that there was no ”magic number” that showed when the greenhouse effect was actually starting to cause changes in climate and weather. But he added, ”It is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here.” An Impact Lasting Centuries If Dr. Hansen and other scientists are correct, then humans, by burning of fossil fuels and other activities, have altered the global climate in a manner that will affect life on earth for centuries to come.

Dr. Hansen, director of NASA’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, testifed before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Continue reading the main story He and other scientists testifying before the Senate panel today said that projections of the climate change that is now apparently occurring mean that the Southeastern and Midwestern sections of the United States will be subject to frequent episodes of very high temperatures and drought in the next decade and beyond

Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate – The New York Times

He made temperature forecasts for three emissions scenarios.  Scenario A was increasing emission growth rates. Scenario B was decreasing emission growth rates. Scenario C was no emissions after the year 2000.

“We have considered cases ranging from business as usual, which is scenario A, to draconian emission cuts, scenario C, which would totally eliminate net trace gas growth by year 2000.”

Climate Change and American Policy: Key Documents, 1979-2015 – Google Books

1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf

So how did Hansen do? Global warming theory is based on warming the troposphere, which should warm faster than the surface. The graph below shows the five year mean of lower troposphere temperatures measured by UAH satellite.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

The next graph overlays the satellite lower troposphere temperatures in red, on Hansen’s 1988 forecasts – at the same scale and normalized to the early 1980’s. As you can see, troposphere temperatures have followed zero emissions Scenario C – meaning there is no evidence humans have influenced the climate.

The other satellite data set is provided by climate alarmist Carl Mears at Remote Sensing Systems, and it also shows temperatures below the (yellow) range of climate models.

Remote Sensing Systems

Mears’ recent graphs have been altered upwards.  Two years ago, the discrepancy between models and measured temperatures was even larger.

Climate Analysis | Remote Sensing Systems

The next image overlays the 2017 graph on the 2019 graph.  You can see that Mears has moved everything up to the upper limit of his error blue bounds – but even so still shows that the climate models are failing.

Four years ago I predicted that Mears, under extreme pressure from the climate mafia,  would alter his data to match the fake surface temperature data sets.

Look for the satellite data to be adjusted to bring it into compliance with the fully fraudulent surface temperatures. The Guardian is now working to discredit UAH, so it seems likely that RSS will soon be making big changes – to match the needs of the climate mafia. Bookmark this post.

March 27, 2015

That is exactly what happened, but even after data tampering – the models are failing.

Hansen’s 1988 testimony came during the last really hot, dry summer in the United States.

He predicted increased heat and drought, and failed on both counts. The frequency of hot afternoons has plummeted in the US over the past century.

Hansen focused on Midwest heat and drought in his 1988 testimony, but no place has cooled faster than the Midwest.

The US is getting wetter, and Hansen’s 1988 testimony came during the last really dry year.

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Climate model forecasts have shown a 100% failure rate, yet mainstream climate science is based almost entirely around them.

Failed Climate Models

NASA’s James Hansen started the global warming scare in earnest, during the very hot summer of 1988.

Until now, scientists have been cautious about attributing rising global temperatures of recent years to the predicted global warming caused by pollutants in the atmosphere, known as the ”greenhouse effect.” But today Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told a Congressional committee that it was 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.

Dr. Hansen, a leading expert on climate change, said in an interview that there was no ”magic number” that showed when the greenhouse effect was actually starting to cause changes in climate and weather. But he added, ”It is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here.” An Impact Lasting Centuries If Dr. Hansen and other scientists are correct, then humans, by burning of fossil fuels and other activities, have altered the global climate in a manner that will affect life on earth for centuries to come.

Dr. Hansen, director of NASA’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, testifed before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Continue reading the main story He and other scientists testifying before the Senate panel today said that projections of the climate change that is now apparently occurring mean that the Southeastern and Midwestern sections of the United States will be subject to frequent episodes of very high temperatures and drought in the next decade and beyond

Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate – The New York Times

He made temperature forecasts for three emissions scenarios.  Scenario A was increasing emission growth rates. Scenario B was decreasing emission growth rates. Scenario C was no emissions after the year 2000.

“We have considered cases ranging from business as usual, which is scenario A, to draconian emission cuts, scenario C, which would totally eliminate net trace gas growth by year 2000.”

Climate Change and American Policy: Key Documents, 1979-2015 – Google Books

1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf

So how did Hansen do? Global warming theory is based on warming the troposphere, which should warm faster than the surface. The graph below shows the five year mean of lower troposphere temperatures measured by UAH satellite.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

The next graph overlays the satellite lower troposphere temperatures in red, on Hansen’s 1988 forecasts – at the same scale and normalized to the early 1980’s. As you can see, troposphere temperatures have followed zero emissions Scenario C – meaning there is no evidence humans have influenced the climate.

The other satellite data set is provided by climate alarmist Carl Mears at Remote Sensing Systems, and it also shows temperatures below the (yellow) range of climate models.

Remote Sensing Systems

Mears’ recent graphs have been altered upwards.  Two years ago, the discrepancy between models and measured temperatures was even larger.

Climate Analysis | Remote Sensing Systems

The next image overlays the 2017 graph on the 2019 graph.  You can see that Mears has moved everything up to the upper limit of his error blue bounds – but even so still shows that the climate models are failing.

Four years ago I predicted that Mears, under extreme pressure from the climate mafia,  would alter his data to match the fake surface temperature data sets.

Look for the satellite data to be adjusted to bring it into compliance with the fully fraudulent surface temperatures. The Guardian is now working to discredit UAH, so it seems likely that RSS will soon be making big changes – to match the needs of the climate mafia. Bookmark this post.

March 27, 2015

That is exactly what happened, but even after data tampering – the models are failing.

Hansen’s 1988 testimony came during the last really hot, dry summer in the United States.

He predicted increased heat and drought, and failed on both counts. The frequency of hot afternoons has plummeted in the US over the past century.

Hansen focused on Midwest heat and drought in his 1988 testimony, but no place has cooled faster than the Midwest.

The US is getting wetter, and Hansen’s 1988 testimony came during the last really dry year.

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Climate model forecasts have shown a 100% failure rate, yet mainstream climate science is based almost entirely around them.

 

I already covered this so i will keep it short.

 

Another Dr. Hansen prophesy that was wrong.

 

NASA Ice-Free Prophesy Update

Posted on June 11, 2018 by tonyheller

Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer.

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., committee chairman, said, “Dr. Hansen was right. Twenty years later, we recognize him as a climate prophet.”

• June 24, 2008

Ten years ago, NASA’s chief climate prophet James Hansen predicted the Arctic would be ice-free no later than this summer.

The Argus-Press – Google News Archive Search

[Jonesboy]

So, Dr. Hansen has been wrong for decades but let's all listen to him anyways...

[Old Student]

1 hour ago, ralis said:

Perhaps Old Student would care to correct my thinking or add to it?

There are quite a few, it's kind of inherent in the concept of a tipping point. In dynamics, equilibria are basins in state space. Think of state space as create a dimension for every variable of the system.  Then a point in the space represents a state.  The path of a point represents the change or evolution of that state through time.  When a system is in stable equilibrium, it is in a basin and on or moving towards an attractor, which is the equilibrium. The basin is due to the fact that if you move away from the equilibrium, since it is stable, you "roll" back down the basin surface to the attractor.  A basin boundary is place where if you roll past it, you roll out of the basin, typically into a new one. So if you roll just up to the boundary, you roll back, if you pass it, you do not. Crossing that threshold changes what the new equilibrium is.  If that equilibrium is, say, a much warmer planet, then once you pass into that basin, it won't matter what humans do anymore the climate will warm -- it will be what they call runaway warming.  And basin boundaries are complicated.  How complicated?  Every pretty picture you've ever seen from the Mandlebrot set is a picture of the boundary of that set's basin at zero. So once passed, it isn't certain you can return.

 

Some tipping points that will move us to much warmer climates are, e.g. the methane permafrost starts to melt, which means the CO2 equivalent in the atmosphere goes way up and keeps going up, and the climate warms pretty much until the fires start and the atmosphere permanently changes.  That's an extreme one and one of your positive feedback loops.  Others are more subtle.  If an area goes from glaciated to unglaciated, the weather overhead changes -- part of that vortex effect I was talking about with the melting of the ice in the Arctic and the Tibetan Plateau.  That doesn't come back when the climate cools to current levels because it takes an ice age to put that much ice down.  And it will not just change the water supply for 3 billion people, it will permanently change the monsoons in the Indian ocean, which affect the entire planet.