Our friends from Real Climate and elsewhere have insisted that Scenario B was their “business as usual” scenario. But this 1989 Popular Science quotes Hansen and colleagues as saying it was Scenario A.
I am absolutely shocked that government climate scientists would lie. I’m also terrified by that map, seeing that we are all going to burn up in the next six years.
The abstract of the paper itself states:
“Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes a reduced linear linear [sic] 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.”
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha02700w.html
In 2006, he went back and rubbed out the “continued,” replaced it with “rapid,” and added a few weasel words:
“Scenario A was described as “on the high side of reality,” because it assumed rapid exponential growth of greenhouse gases and it assumed that there would be no large volcanoes (which inject small particles into the stratosphere and cool the Earth) during the next half century. Scenario C was described as “a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined,” specifically greenhouse gases were assumed to stop increasing after 2000. The intermediate Scenario B was described as “the most plausible.” Scenario B had continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions at a moderate rate and it sprinkled three large volcanoes in the 50-year period after 1988, one of them in the 1990s.”
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200604/viewpoint.cfm
What a lying POS!
I agree that they are lying, exaggerating bastards. But, if one wants to say how much should temp.’s have gone up given their assumptions at the time, then you do have to take into account that CFC’s and CH4 did not go up as they anticipated. I would also give them the volcanoes. However, they also want to change their sensitivity to CO2 doublings to what they use now, which is cheating. Unless you show both and admit that the 1990 was wrong and overestimated.
Someone should’ve taken their crayons away.
They did, but they missed the red one.
To be a “climate scientist” all you ‘ll ever need is a red crayon.
That’s because they’re not allowed to pick up anything sharp in the asylum.
See what happens when the kiddies are left with only one color to play with. 😆
Elton J. Gissendanner, who predicted in the Pop. Sci. article that the Florida Keys would not exist by 2050 was convicted for obstruction of justice in 1988:
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1988-03-23/news/8801180527_1_state-capital-prison-elton-j-gissendanner
The big brain wash continues and now turned into a religion. Unbelievable.
Computer crime comes to mind.
Submission to EPA Hearing on Carbon Pollution Standards.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/07/submission-to-epa-hearing-on-carbon-pollution-standards/#more-96915
The submission will be treated like “cursing in the church” and remain without any effect.
That my submission will “remain without any effect” has been an accurate forecast thus far. While required by law to respond to citizen input in exercising its rule making powers, the EPA fails to do so if this input clashes with the POTUS’s political objectives. Neither logic nor scientific method constrains these objectives.
How odd that in all these scenarios the Arctic warms the least.