Here we go again. Sound the alarm – louder! So far most climate models have consistently over-estimated temperature rises, compared to observations. The paper goes online shortly (see below for full details).
– – –
According to a new paper in Oxford Open Climate Change, the strategies humanity must pursue to reduce climate change will have to include more than reducing greenhouse gases.
This comes from an analysis of climate data led by researcher James Hansen, says the press release (@ EurekAlert!).
Scientists have known since the 1800s that infrared-absorbing (greenhouse) gases warm the Earth’s surface and that the abundance of greenhouse gases changes naturally as well as from human actions. [Talkshop comment – the human actions part at least is still a theory].
Roger Revelle, who was one of the early scientists to study global warming, wrote in 1965 that industrialization meant that human beings were conducting a “vast geophysical experiment” by burning fossil fuels, which adds carbon dioxide (CO2) to the air.
CO2 has now reached levels that have not existed for millions of years. [Talkshop comment – no, CO2 levels are low by long-term historical standards].
Climate sensitivity
A long-standing issue concerns how much global temperature will rise for a specified CO2 increase. [Talkshop comment – built-in assumption]. A 1979 study released by the United States National Academy of Sciences concluded that doubling atmospheric CO2 with ice sheets fixed would likely cause global warming between 1.5 and 4.5° Celsius. This was a large range, and there was additional uncertainty about the delay in warming caused by Earth’s massive ocean.
This new paper re-evaluates climate sensitivity based on improved paleoclimate data, finding that climate is more sensitive than usually assumed. Their best estimate for doubled CO2 is global warming of 4.8°C, significantly larger than the 3°C best estimate of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
. . .
The paper, “Global warming in the pipeline,” will be available (at midnight on November 2nd) at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfclm/kgad008.
Full press release here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Leon Simons
Club of Rome · Dutch Chapter
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Leon-Simons
This listed author of the paper seems to be EU trained in ‘Entrepreneurship and Climate Change’.
— https://www.climate-kic.org/
The link goes on about net zero etc.
– – –
Five other listed authors are with NASA GISS.
Has Hanson’s latest effort got Hokey Schticks in it?
Tallbloke ==> James spells his surname the same way I do — with an “e”.
No warming here this week …
second highest snowfall on Halloween eve in Minnesota. I had a couple inches of global warming on my lawn and the temps are in the 20’s instead of the 50’s.
I am so sick of these grifters, liars, and scam artists, especially the ones in Congress.
“Improved paleoclinate data”
How can you know its improved?
Having just perused the said paper, all 49 pages, I have concluded that it is unsubstantiated gibberish. To give an indication of the clarity of the paper here is a representative sample, from an early section on page 8.
“The climate forcing from our formulae is slightly larger than IPCC AR6 forcings (Fig. 1). For example, in 2019, the final year of AR6 data, our GHG forcing is 4.00 W/m2, while the AR6 forcing is 3.84 W/m2. Our forcing is expected to be larger, because the IPCC forcings are Fo for all gases except O3, for which they provide Fa (AR6 section 7.3.2.5). Table 1 in Efficacy allows accurate comparison: δTo for 2×CO2 for the GISS model used in Efficacy is 0.22°C, λ is 0.67°C per W/m2, so δTo/λ = 0.33 W/m2. Thus, the conversion factor from Fo to Fe (or Fs) is 4.11/(4.11- 0.33). The non-O3 portion of the AR6 2019 forcing (3.84 – 0.47 = 3.37) W/m2 increases to 3.664 W/m2. The O3 portion of the AR6 2019 forcing (0.47 W/m2) decreases to 0.385 W/m2 because the efficacy of Fa(O3) is 0.82. The AR6 GHG forcing in 2019 is thus ~ 4.05 W/m2, expressed as Fe ~ Fs, which is about 1% larger than follows from our formulae.”
I hope you have all understood that.
The main takeaway from the paper is that they have included every possible so called forcing effect, real or imaginary, apart from the one that really matters, the infra-red absorption spectra of the greenhouse gases, the very essence of the so called greenhouse effect. Not once is this even mentioned. They conveniently ignore the unfortunate fact that water vapour quickly absorbs almost all of the earth radiation in the wavebands absorbed by the greenhouse gases, leaving any further increase in CO2 concentration virtually impotent in its ability to effect temperatures. There have been numerous papers published over the last couple of years showing climate sensitivities to CO2 to be less than 1degC. For example https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/article/10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12
Sensitivity estimates 2001-2017:
https://postlmg.cc/47w6x3Cg
Extrapolating the TCS and ECR trends is interesting…
[mod] date edit applied
History of an obsessive climate warmist who blames humans for the weather…
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/11/former-head-of-nasas-climate-group-issues-dire-warning-on-warming/
When is WordPress going to let us edit posts???!!!
Warmists can’t agree…Mann calls out Hansen.
NOVEMBER 3, 2023
Pioneering scientist says global warming is accelerating. Some experts call his claims overheated
Hansen, who alerted much of the United States to the harms of climate change in dramatic congressional testimony in 1988, said Thursday that since 2010, the rate of warming has jumped by 50%. Hansen argues that since 2010 there is more sun energy in the atmosphere, and less of the particles that can reflect it back into space thanks to efforts to cut pollution. The loss of those particles means there’s less of the cooling effect that they can have.
. . .
University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann, who insisted that since 1990 warming is steadily increasing but not accelerated, posted a rebuttal to Hansen’s claims and said climate change right now is bad enough and there’s no need to overstate the case. Mann said “it has always been risky to ignore (Hansen’s) warnings and admonitions” but when claims are made so out of the mainstream the standard for evidence is high, and he said Hansen hasn’t met them.
https://phys.org/news/2023-11-scientist-global-experts-overheated.html
– – –
Comments on New Article by James Hansen
By Michael E. Mann on Wednesday, November 1, 2023
It has always been risky to ignore his warnings and admonitions. I say as much in my profile of Jim (a short excerpt of which is shown above) from my 2015 book Dire Predictions: Understanding Climate Change. So it with no pleasure whatsoever that I find myself in a position to have to criticize his latest work.
. . .
Over the past few decades, there is no statistically-supportable evidence of an increase in the rate of surface warming.
https://michaelmann.net/content/comments-new-article-james-hansen
More debate between warmists…warming faster or not…more or less sensitivity…aerosol factors…where are they at?
I don’t feel qualified to argue in these discussions, but we ( WE as in society – in BUSINESS, especially) get clobbered by the silly nonsense imposed upon us: ‘…and less of the particles that can reflect it back into space thanks to efforts to cut pollution…’ MAKE UP YOUR MIND : whadda ya want!!!!
I am very very happy with my Aircooled Deutz engines – burn very little fuel for the work they do compared with their alter water cooled ones without/with DEF which are thirsty, easily 2 gals per hour more ie jumping from max3Imp gals to around 5Imp galls per hour – howzat better for the environment – or our pocket? My older Deere engines drink more than my Perkins but for some jobs do more work in their respective tractors – so gallons burnt per unit of work it is still more economical. AND then I have a DBenz BIG engine which is more economical than a much smaller Japanese diesel which in itself “runs on air” as the farm runabout tractor …. but all this is not good enough so we have to have all electronic machines opening up a new chapter … will be a new book on farming … not under our local control. .. And for those with oil heating which does work out cheaper than all the rest for traditional buildings, take a look at this: Premature carboning & problems with vaporising burners more @ https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=the+Aga+saga+fuel+heatbase&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
stpaulchuck says: ‘second highest snowfall on Halloween eve in Minnesota.’
Good piece of info. That was the time the ~full moon transited the conj line between earth and Jupiter – a close approach-. Gravity vector change.
@ saighdear. On your air-cooled Deutz do you get fouling between fan and cylinder fins? On my ancient air-cooled ‘mule’ it is where the mice build their nests in the colder period.
Not exactly subject matter, but important still since it is what feed the world – make no mistake-.
If they’re still around, Mann, Hausfather and Co. will still be drawing their silly Hokey Schtiks when the expanding glaciers overwhelm their dodgy “Science”laboratories.
Huh, you want a Bet? https://www.ardmediathek.de/tv-programm/65175e0ad6f4480008d90e4b Wasserknappheit: Was können wir dagegen tun? = Water shortage: what can we do about it? “Global Us” –> Das Globalisierungsmagazin =ARD-alpha 25 Min.
Themen: Japan rüstete sich auf, aber wo sind die Rekruten? | Wasserknappheit: Was können wir dagegen tun? + More fascinating to watch. How many Tugs will be Speaking to Neptune’s toes?
@ melitamegalithic, sorry I missed your comment , so FYI. Cleanliness is the key: A large enough fine BOX or rotary ( belt driven) screen to allow cooling airflow without debris sticking. Failing that, prevent oil leakages and keep everything clean / DRY. Haven’t had that problem on the Combines, and tractors just tends to gather miscell dust n dirt. Prefer these engines to the Listers ( we have a few examples as playthings on a dumper & 240v/110V generator)
Failing all that, See if you can get one of Schrödinger’s boxes on flebay: May have something inside of use to you” 😉
[…] saighdear on Hanson et al paper claims… […]
Hansen’s latest overheated global warming claims are based on poor science
Posted on November 6, 2023 by niclewis
Hansen’s latest overheated global warming claims are based on poor science
My friend, his entire shtick is based on science fiction and world class funding request writing. “Let the hoax proceed!!!”
Although I respect Hansen’s ability and considerable scientific contributions, in my view papers he leads are increasingly strongly biased towards overheated projections and dire conclusions.[19] The “political recommendations” with great impact on the society in Hansen et al. (2023) cannot be justified because their foundation is very shaky, as shown here for climate sensitivity and, in relation to warming-in-the-pipeline and ocean heating, in Michael Mann’s critique.
Nicholas Lewis 6 November 2023
– – –
All these people rely on greenhouse gas theories for temperature variations at all timescales. Other ideas e.g. albedo/cloud variations are sidelined or at best considered secondary.