James Hansen’s research shows that a mini-runaway, pushing global temperatures to 10-12 degrees C above the Holocene, is all but certain under continuous, business as usual, fossil fuel burning through 2100.
Alarmists and lukewarmers like Will Nitschke tell us that we are not on Hansen’s BAU track, yet Hansen keeps saying that we are on BAU. Why are they arguing with the world’s greatest climatologist?
To be fair, one could admit to being wrong about what BAU was in 1988. Oh wait, Hansen hasn’t done that.
Shock news: Top scientists say trace gases double the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide, global temperatures to rise by over 8.6 degrees C, Maldives to sink beneath the waves and James Hansen is 99% certain that all drought is caused by the Greenhouse effect. News at 11!
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/102031478
Thanks for mentioning my name. I didn’t realise I was that important. 😉
Although I don’t have the slightest idea about WTF you are talking about. 🙂
You and Dana keep saying that we are off BAU, because of a failure to increase CFC’s by 0.0000002 mole fraction, but Hansen has never backed off the BAU rhetoric.
I’m not sure how you worked out that Dana is my buddy. But putting that speculation of yours aside, what I’ve pointed to a half dozen times now is that if you evaluate a climate model prediction you look at the assumptions in the model and you look at the assumptions about what the future composition of the atmosphere will be. Obviously, if your guesses about the future composition of the atmosphere is wrong, that doesn’t mean the model is wrong. You know this as well as I do, therefore the only reasonable assumption I can make is you’re being a dick for the sake of being a dick.
Hansen has never stated that we are off BAU. Why are you making excuses for him?
Will,
Since we have far exceeded the 1.5% increase per year above baseline of 310, (300% from 1960 through 2010), we are above the level of CO2 predicted by scenario A.
How can anyone look at the trends and the abstract, and not see that we are above Hansen’s scenario A. It is BAU on steroids.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/01/hansen-et-al-global-climate-ch/
I like Mr Nitschke’s excuse of Hansens abysmal failure… “His prediction is wrong because he failed to predict the composition of what he was predicting , this failure to predict correctly is excusable because he could not have foreseen that this would lead to his predictions abysmal failure therefore his prediction was an unmitigated success.
Perhaps what we have here is a failure to communicate. Up is down and etc.