Hansen’s 1988 definition, which has been deleted from the GISS website and blocked from the web archive
Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes a reduced 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.
So what has actually happened since 1988? Definitely not scenario C. Definitely not scenario B.
Hansen referred to Scenario A as the Business As Usual scenario.
It astonishes me that people are still trying to play the scenario B shell game.
Scenario B is a reasonable selection because Hansen’s warming calculations also factored in other greenhouse gases besides CO2.
Nonsense. Radiative transfer models show that the only two greenhouse gases of any significance in Earth’s atmosphere are H20 and CO2. Others are in the noise.
Why do you keep repeating this?
Because you compare what Hansen’s model predicted based on what the model assumed the atmosphere was composed of at that time. Period. Blabbering on about what you *think* radiative transfer models should or shouldn’t show is just a misdirection. Drop the bullshitting, because you don’t need to. Hansen was way out, even if you compare scenario B to reality.
Hansen said scenario A is BAU. CO2 is up exponentially. Other gases are irrelevant. You have no idea what you are talking about with the radiative transfer models.
Are you ever going to drop this BS?
Hansen didn’t think other greenhouse gases were irrelevant. He thought they were very important. Whether his model makes sense “physically” is an entirely different question. You are misdirecting because you are wrong but won’t admit it. Drop the BS.
Your argument is lame, beyond comprehension.
If it was lame “beyond comprehension” you would address it, rather than try to discuss a separate issue.
I have no idea how to explain it any more clearly. Your argument is absurd.
The problem is you understand perfectly what I am point out to you but you don’t want to acknowledge it. When in that situation, you resort to insults. You don’t win an argument by not addressing the point raised, but instead, respond by raising a different issue. That’s what I describe as absurd.
A 10X increase in CH4 increases downwelling LW radiation in the tropics by only 0.25%
Astonishing that anyone would try to pass off an exponential increase in CO2 as being of secondary importance in this discussion
These people are idiots and liars. Why are trying to protect them?
The problem is that you assume other people think illogically too.
Peddling the same misdirection doesn’t get you out of the hole you dug yourself Steve.
The issue is NOT whether Hansen’s model makes sense to you. If you want to decide if Hansen’s model is right or wrong, you compare what his model predicted, or would have predicted, based on atmospheric composition, to actual temperature measurements.
You can blabber on about radiative models or the price of tea in China. But it doesn’t get you out of your hole. Here is another tip: Insults don’t make me look dumb.
You are arguing that an exponential increase in CO2 is consistent with a “reduced linear growth in trace gases.” Utter nonsense.
I’m not arguing any such thing. You’re arguing with the voices in your head. I’ve made my point fairly clearly and rephrased it once. If you want to keep avoiding that point, that your call.
What part of Hansen’s 1988 words ” scenario B assumes a reduced linear growth of trace gases” is not clear to you?
CO2 is up exponentially since 1988.
Steve McIntyre looked very carefully at this issue on multiple occasions. Note his assessment –
“The different handling of Other Trace Gases was material to Scenarios A and B outcomes, accounting for virtually the entire difference between scenarios.”
http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/18/hansen-scenarios-a-and-b-revised/
This is in direct contradiction to your claims. I’m sorry but McIntyre explains the situation in as much detail as is possible given the circumstances. And if it comes down to your ramblings and insults or the McIntyre assessment, I’ll go with McIntyre.
BTW, McIntyre also addresses the claim you are making, and demonstrates why what you’re saying is nearly complete crap.
Please tell us who some of the other people you worship are. I find that sort of argument very compelling.
Do you agree with his technical analysis? If you don’t please state where he got it wrong. And preferably don’t blather on with vague one line sentences that radiative models don’t work that way.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/hansen-off-by-three-orders-of-magnitude-close-enough-for-government-work/
The CFC discrepancy you found, if correct, reaffirms the point I made. It actually works against what you are claiming.
Which scenario B? And which temperature data set? All of it has been Hansenized for your deception.
Scenario B is what you can work out, as far as that’s feasible, from the original Hansen 1988 paper.
What about Dana’s version? Is it the only adjusted scenario?
“Hansen’s scenario B projection has been adjusted…”
I would side with Steven’s “Business as Usual” argument in this case. Even granting scenario B on a technicality, the projections are still wrong.
And Winston has sure been busy…stuff disappearing left and right all of sudden. Maybe a good idea to add a page with these documents?
Hansen was wrong every which way. CO2 Emissions increased more then he projected, All the politics of disaster are based on CO2 emissions. The earth warmed less then his scenario C, reduce to zero all emission growth. That is the story, and it is not controversial. Politically CAGW should be dead.
(All the rest is pedantic academic haggling, fit for a class room, unfit for policy