This week, I received an e-mail from a respected colleague who wrote
Hi all, Simply put — a more convincing case could not be made. This should be front page news.
There is always room for doubt, and alternate hypotheses, and science allows one to be wrong — but this case is made with one simple figure.
The article referred to is
by James Fallows of the Atlantic and the figure is at the top of this post.
If the observed surface temperature data used in the figure in which this claim is made is correct, but also so is the measurement of lower tropospheric temperatures (such as from MSU RSS and MSU UAH), than Hansen’s forecast for the surface temperatures would be correct, but for the wrong reason. If the warming were due to added CO2 and other greenhouse gases, the lower tropospheric temperatures would have warmed at least as much.
However, the latest available global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly (see) is only +0.11 C above the 30 year average. Over this time period, the Hansen figure shows an expected change anomaly of ~+0.5c.
The trend has also been essentially flat since 2002. The Hansen figure indicates the current change since 2002 should be almost +0.2C.
These discrepancies clearly show the Atlantic article did not objectively look into the Hansen prediction.