Anyway, once more,
The scientific methodgoes something like:
1. observation of a phenomenon
2. think out a mechanism that could cause it
3. make a prediction that follows from the mechanism
4. test the prediction against reality
1.1: it's warming
1.2: carbon dioxide is increasing
1.3: in the geologic past there seems to be a correlation between the two
2: think out a mechanism that could cause it
2.1. greenhouse effect of CO2
3.1. make a prediction that follows from the mechanism
According to Hansen et al 1988:
Page 7 Fig 3:
Notice about scenarios Hansen et al '88 Section 4,
A: ...the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially"
..B: decreasing trace gas growth rates, such that the annual increase of the greenhouse climate forcing remains approximately constant at the present level"
...C: drastic reduction in GH gas growth.
See also appendix B with more assumptions on other GH gasses.
4. test the prediction against reality:
CO2 emission trends continue to accelerate in 21st century.
Yet this upper-limit projection predicted annual emissions growth of only 2.3 percent between 2000 and 2010far less than the 3.1 percent annual increase observed so far this century.
So Hansen was too optimistic and he should also have included a scenario even higher than A. So if we compare nowadays reality we certainly can disregard scenario B and C.
(Note that on the annual plots the last one is the first quarter of 2008 the other are annual, hence comparison is with reservation)
No way of a A+ scenario. Who can possibly maintain that Hansens prediction was correct, implying that climate was mostly about greenhouse gasses and very little about anuything else.
yes of course there is the solar variability and La Nina but there is also El Nino of 1998, (a nice end point bias of the IPCC). But if you issue forecasts for a cooler year due to La Nina, what then really is driving the climate? The CO2 or the sun and the ENSO?
Why didn't Hansen think of the ENSO and the PDO?
Anyway, all the reason for this open letter to the UN:
.....These latest temperature readings represent averages of records obtained from standardized meteorological stations from around the planet, located in both urban as well as rural settings. They are augmented by satellite data, now generally accepted as ultimately authoritative, since they have a global footprint and are not easily vulnerable to manipulation nor observer error. What is also clear from the graphs is that average global
temperatures have been in stasis for almost a decade and may now even be falling.
A third important observation is that contrary to the CO2 driver theory, temperatures in the upper troposphere (where most jets fly) have fallen over the past two decades. [Footnote 2]
IPCC policy is already leading to economic and unintended environmental damage. Specifically the policy of burning food – maize as biofuel – has contributed to sharp rises in food prices which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops .
Given the economic devastation that is already happening and which is now widely recognised will continue to flow from this policy, what possible justification can there be for its retention?
We ask you and all those whose names are associated with IPCC policy to accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy.....