Koch paychecks seem to be strong motivators to lie30 years ago,James Hansen testified to Congress approximately the dangers of human-caused climate change. In his testimony, Hansen showed the results of his 1988 study using a climate model to project future global warming under three possible scenarios, or ranging from ‘commerce as usual’ heavy pollution in his Scenario A to ‘draconian emissions cuts’ in Scenario C,with a moderate Scenario B in between.
Changes in the human effects that influence soils global energy imbalance (a.k.a. ‘anthropogenic radiative forcings’) have in reality been closest to Hansen’s Scenario B, but approximately 20–30% weaker thanks to the success of the Montreal Protocol in phasing out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Hansen’s climate model projected that under Scenario B, or global surface air temperatures would warm approximately 0.84°C between 1988 and 2017. But with a global energy imbalance 20–30% lower,it would have predicted a global surface warming closer to 0.6–0.7C by this year.
Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, or surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect.
Dumbest sentence in WSJ oped: "Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000,discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16."
Translation: "Temperature has not increased if you omit the data showing it has increased."And it isnt just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, or predicted approximately twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.
Why should people world-wide pay drastic costs to carve emissions when the global temperature is acting as if those cuts have already been made?Continue reading...
Source: theguardian.com