Life is getting difficult for global warming advocates because nature isn’t complying with the ominous predictions that the so-called experts have been making for years. Let’s look at some predictions made by Dr. Jim Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Dr. Hansen is one of the world’s leading “experts” on global warming. Yet his predictions have proven brutally wrong.
The picture below summarizes Dr. Hansen’s predictions from 1988 about what would happen over the next 30 years.
The legend is a bit small, but here’s all you need to know. The red, orange and yellow lines represent three scenarios of how temperatures could evolve, according to Dr. Hansen’s projections, based on different assumptions. The two blue lines at the bottom represent how temperatures actually evolved, based on satellite temperature measurements (the most accurate system available).
The red curve follows a scenario (A) of continued emissions growth based on the previous 20 years before 1988 (which turned out to be an underestimate of actual emissions growth.) The orange represents a scenario (B) of fixed emissions at the rate achieved in the 1980s. The yellow curve portrays a scenario (C) in which “a drastic reduction” in GHG emissions is assumed for 1990-2000.
The result suggests the old NASA GCM was considerably more sensitive to GHGs [greenhouse gases] than is the real atmosphere since (a) the model was forced with lower GHG concentrations than actually occurred and (b) still gave a result that was significantly warmer than observations. (Source)
Even though the actual amount of greenhouse gases exceeded the most pessimistic scenario in the chart (the red line) temperatures were considerably lower than even the most optimist projection (the yellow line).
As an economist, I sympathize with the difficulty in making accurate projections. It’s not an easy task. Which is why climate scientists should be much more prudent about their claims of unspeakable catastrophes that will occur if we don’t adopt their environmental religion. They speak of these things as if they were certain, while their models prove to be hugely inaccurate at replicating the actual climate.
The model illustrated above is obviously not well calibrated and therefore useless. Back to the drawing board, boys.