Real Climate Science

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.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

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.

Popular Science – Google Books

It astonishes me that people are still trying to play the scenario B shell game.

Hansen’s 1988 BAU forecast for scenario A was a complete disaster. They weren’t even in the ballpark.

Popular Science – Google Books

This is what Dana shows in his 100% fraudulent graph. Nothing about this graph resembles reality.

SIGNIFIGANT RISE IN SEA LEVEL NOW SEEMS CERTAIN

February 18, 1986

MANY scientists are so sure that the sea level will rise visibly in the coming decades that they are advising planners to adopt new strategies now. A predicted rise in sea level of one foot within the next 30 to 40 years will drive much of the Atlantic and Gulf shoreline inward by a hundred feet and some of it by more than a thousand feet, according to marine geologists.

SIGNIFIGANT RISE IN SEA LEVEL NOW SEEMS CERTAIN – NYTimes.com

Not only did Dana use the wrong scenario (B when it should have been A) but he plotted scenario B too low (red line)

GISS is now 0.4C below scenario B, and Dana shows it 0.2 C below.

Not only is everything else about the graph fraudulent,  but it turns out that Dana ‘s claimed Lindzen forecast is also a fake.

Does anyone have any idea where the curve attributed to me came from?  I don’t do forecasts.

Dick

Dave Burton found another CIA paper from 1974 :

documents.theblackvault.com/documents/environment/potentialtrends.pdf

They blamed dips in the polar vortex on Arctic cooling, unlike the current administration – which thinks cold is caused by heat, debt is wealth, liabilities are assets, and being on the government dole is prosperity.

Check out this crock of lies from Peter Sinclair.

Puffing Lindzen | Climate Denial Crock of the Week

He made up fake numbers for every line in his graph, didn’t normalize the non-existent Lindzen forecast. and used the wrong Hansen scenario.

Hansen’s forecast was a complete disaster, and the claimed Lindzen forecast is a fraud constructed by Nuttercelli.

Graph below shows GISS in red, overlaid on Hansen’s 1988 forecasts.

Having the 1975 NAS report in hand completely disarms alarmists. Thanks Dave!

 

https://ia801806.us.archive.org/7/items/understandingcli00unit/understandingcli00unit.pdf

It also provides a smoking gun that Mann had no legitimate reason to delete Briffa’s trees, which precisely matched the NAS graph.

http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/26/the-deleted-portion-of-the-briffa-reconstruction/ …

www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

h/t to omnologos

The Windsor Star – Google News Archive Search