Michaels refers to greenhouse gas scenarios A, B, C in our 1988 paper, failing to note that precisely measured greenhouse gas climate forcing since 1988 fall almost exactly on our scenario B, which we had described as the most likely
Scenario B wasn’t based on logarithmic forcing. It was based on linear growth of greenhouse gases.
Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes a reduced linear linear growth of trace gases, and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.
The actual warming is well below scenario C. The forecasts have been abysmal and anyone with half a brain would not pay the slightest attention to what this man says.
Just like with the MetOffice. You forecast everything and then anything will confirm your forecast.
What’s even funnier is when you look at reality and realize they can’t forecast anything…
…Hansen tried to cover his ass with three choices, and still got it wrong.
Scenario C is just extending the natural temperature trend – “if this trend continues” –
but he couldn’t predict that the trend would change…..and it did….LOL
Yes but Hansen did not forsee the unexpected leveling off in methane emissions that began in the 1990s.
Methane contributes almost nothing to the greenhouse effect. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/runaway-methane/
So you’re saying that all the peer reviewed papers saying the permafrost is melting and releasing more methane…..
…are flat out liars
At least we can all agree on that.
Yes, that’s seems to be what he’s saying. The methane that was coming to get us, never came. All of the literature stating alarm about methane and permafrost was entirely fraudulent and the peer-reviewed studies are invalidated. The credibility of both the scientists and reviews are in serious question.
The credibility of both the scientists and reviews are in serious question.
But..but..but Tony says we have to believe peer reviewed science – I an confused!!
Business as usual gives away the plot! If he had claimed scenario B to be BAU he could have gotten by with being a bit off on CO2 and temperature trends. A is labeled BAU which means the most likely outcome without change would be A.
Hansen started to ball rolling that will destroy the entire credibility of the entire scientific profession as people realize they have been deliberately lied to and other scientists did not speak out against the practices and even defended them!
Climatology is causing light to be shown on the Malpractice being practiced in many scientific fields.