Clarifying Hansen’s Scenarios – Worse Than It Seems

This is the common perception of the meaning of Hansen’s 1988 scenarios.

–A: Increase of CO2 emissions of 1.5% per year
–B: fixed increase CO2 emissions after the year 2000
–C: No increase in CO2 emissions after the year 2000

Norwegian Climate Professor: Hansen’s Projection Off By 150%…Regrettable That Politicians Still View It As Reliable

But that isn’t accurate. What Hansen actually wrote was

  • Scenario A means steadily increasing annual emissions.
  • Scenario B doesn’t make any sense, but possibly means constant annual emissions at a level lower than 1988.
  • Scenario C means essentially zero emissions after the year 2000 i.e. “net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.”

So where are we according to GISS? Below the zero emissions scenario C.

Temperatures are lower than Hansen forecast they would be if humans disappeared off the planet twelve years ago.

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Clarifying Hansen’s Scenarios – Worse Than It Seems

  1. Martin says:

    Given that the actual recorded temperature is quite close to Hansen’s scenario C despite ever increasing CO2 levels – it would seem logical to conclude that CO2 has nothing whatsoever to so with climate.

    • Eric Simpson says:

      Let’s assume he actually knew roughly that temps would follow scenario C — regardless of what happens with CO2. That what we did on CO2 emissions would have no effect at all. So, IF we at the time instituted draconian CO2 cuts, he could say that his cuts worked, because temps would be doing what they are doing now. This would be used to justify even more cuts, as we head then toward the leftist dream of apocalyptic de-industrialization.
      What if at the time he didn’t get govts to institute drastic CO2 cuts? For one, at the time, Hansen was doubling down, was trying to rush the people and govts into implementing his whacky economy-busting ideas.
      Secondly, he probably just wasn’t going to bother with thinking that far ahead — nearly 25 years now. But now he needs to pay the piper for his demonstrated proven bullshit.

  2. chris y says:

    Another sentence in Hansen’s figure caption that is at least as important-

    “Principal results from the EXPERIMENTS are as follows:…”

    When researchers decide that the output of a computer model is an experimental result, they have lost contact with reality.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Actually, Hansen’s models are an experiment of sorts. No, not an experiment in so-called “climate science”, but rather an experiment in human psychology.

    • Andy DC says:

      Yes, “experiments” with pre-determined results!

  3. Jimbo says:

    Yet Hansen continues to warm of Thermarmageddon. I think he has lost touch with reality – doesn’t he ever have doubts after seeing what a monumental failure his earlier scenarios were?

    • Eric Simpson says:

      Thermarmageddon, like it. Or just Thermageddon?
      Yes, going on 50 years now, they all have been warming of Whatever-ageddon. Usually they say that it’s just 10 or 15 years away, so now we have countless examples of their laughably ludicrous predictions of doom… for 1973, 1979, 1985, 1999, 2000, 2001: The Armageddon Odyssey, 2002, every year of the last decade. Every prediction, every time, has proven in every way to be as a good a pile of poop. What a screeching broken record. Predictable to a tee. Put a muzzle on it.

  4. Jimbo says:

    Sorry I meant “warn” or maybe not. ;)

  5. It is incorrect to automatically assume CO2 has nothing to do with climate. It’s also possible that the Earth has entered a natural cooling phase. If that hypothetical scenario was true, than CO2 may have slightly mitigated the harm that might have otherwise occurred.

    You have to love climate science; toss a coin and that’s about as good as anyone else’s opinion or forecast.

    • Eric Simpson says:

      I know we’re in the same boat, but it’s not our job to show CO2 affects the climate. Oh, possibly it does somehow in yet to be demonstrated way, but that’s not what the evidence shows. The warmists want to rework industrial civilization based on the flimsiest of contentions about CO2. The ipcc tried to make the case that CO2 affecting climate temps is “settled science” by positing a causal correlation between CO2 and temps… but this is a specious false correlation (not causal). Yes, the very foundation of the ipcc’s claim for CO2 driven climate warming has been repudiated. Yet, see algor repeat this monstrous deception in this must view and share 3 minute video:

      And listen to this, just last month Jo Nova & Tony Cox wrote: “If CO2 is having an impact on our atmosphere it is impossible to say with any certainty what that effect has been.” In response to that statement I commented:
      Exactly. There is a lot of evidence that the leftist environmentalists contrived a problem to which the solution was ‘coincidentally’ precisely what they have been crying for for decades: de-industrialization! But, it turns out (surprise), there is NO empirical evidence that CO2 effects temps on a climate level. None. At best we have an ambiguous controversial arguable theoretical model.
      Fact is, the only solid evidence there is shows that CO2 rises and falls as a result of temperature change, not that it causes temp change. … Lindzen says: “Claims… that man’s activity have contributed to warming are trivially true but essentially meaningless.” Piers Corbyn takes it further: “Observational evidence gives the possibility that the net effect of CO2 increases on World temperatures may not be ‘only trivial’ but in fact miniscule, zero, or even negative due to errors in some of the science some claim or – I would suggest – hitherto not understood feed-back and competing processes…” My view, CO2 isn’t going to “alleviate” global cooling, as CO2 doesn’t do squat.

  6. Girma says:

    Here is my comparison of Hansen et al (1988) VS observation =>

  7. Dave N says:

    Wait for it.. alarmist apologists will now claim that those predictions were made a long time ago, and science has “improved” since then. Two problems with this:

    Hansen stands by his 1988 predictions.
    Modern models still can’t get it right.

    Some improvement.

  8. bwdave says:

    Hansen continues to adjust temperatures to match his ’88 predictions.

  9. hanson807 says:

    Hansen has actually “adjusted” the historical data. Am I the only one here that cringes to find out this is acceptable?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s