Hansen 2013 : “12C Warming Under Business As Usual” Scenarios

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.

James Hansen and the Three Categories of the Runaway Greenhouse: Earth Uninhabitable for Humans at ~5,000 Gigatons Fossil Fuel Burned | robertscribbler

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?

About stevengoddard

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

8 Responses to Hansen 2013 : “12C Warming Under Business As Usual” Scenarios

  1. Dave N says:

    To be fair, one could admit to being wrong about what BAU was in 1988. Oh wait, Hansen hasn’t done that.

  2. Andy Oz says:

    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

  3. 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.

  4. FundMe says:

    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.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s