Thread by @ncdave4life

@Willard1951 @EthonRaptor @IngersolRobert @KCTaz @Vieux_Rhone @ClimateSkeptic4 @ancistroneura @JsharkJill @swcrisis @RuleByLogic @Gladfly1 @OscarsWild1 @JoeTheAtheist @Schtickery @Jamz129 @PolAnimalAus @ClimatePoet @ClimateScience2 @WadeKendall4 @Tangomitteckel @NikolovScience @DisorderDipolar @SimonMaxfield8 @Kenneth72712993 @LochChesney @SmithRobertson8 @DawnTJ90 @MATTP1949 @AtomsksSanakan @ianrowley677 @BadgersNo @Ceist8 @ZombiePiano @CymaticWave @CrangusShish @insane_voice @TheDisproof @maya_phd @leonardjcohen @FrankWi74044551 @fknsavages27 @GillesnFio @HVACPerformance @heisenburgal2o3 @Achilles_1985 @Tokyo_Tom @stevethib The phrase "overall emissions trajectory (in terms of radiative forcing)" reflects your confusion, Willard —and Hansen's! Emissions can't be expressed "in terms of radiative forcing."

Emissions = GHGs that are emitted.
Concentrations, not emissions, determine radiative forcing.

@Willard1951 @EthonRaptor @IngersolRobert @KCTaz @Vieux_Rhone @ClimateSkeptic4 @ancistroneura @JsharkJill @swcrisis @RuleByLogic @Gladfly1 @OscarsWild1 @JoeTheAtheist @Schtickery @Jamz129 @PolAnimalAus @ClimatePoet @ClimateScience2 @WadeKendall4 @Tangomitteckel @NikolovScience @DisorderDipolar @SimonMaxfield8 @Kenneth72712993 @LochChesney @SmithRobertson8 @DawnTJ90 @MATTP1949 @AtomsksSanakan @ianrowley677 @BadgersNo @Ceist8 @ZombiePiano @CymaticWave @CrangusShish @insane_voice @TheDisproof @maya_phd @leonardjcohen @FrankWi74044551 @fknsavages27 @GillesnFio @HVACPerformance @heisenburgal2o3 @Achilles_1985 @Tokyo_Tom @stevethib Only by ignoring the important processes that 𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙫𝙚 CGHGs from the atmosphere can you make the mistake of equating "emissions" with changes in atmospheric concentrations of GHGs.

That's what Hansen did, and it was one of the two most impactful of the many errors he made.

@Willard1951 @EthonRaptor @IngersolRobert @KCTaz @Vieux_Rhone @ClimateSkeptic4 @ancistroneura @JsharkJill @swcrisis @RuleByLogic @Gladfly1 @OscarsWild1 @JoeTheAtheist @Schtickery @Jamz129 @PolAnimalAus @ClimatePoet @ClimateScience2 @WadeKendall4 @Tangomitteckel @NikolovScience @DisorderDipolar @SimonMaxfield8 @Kenneth72712993 @LochChesney @SmithRobertson8 @DawnTJ90 @MATTP1949 @AtomsksSanakan @ianrowley677 @BadgersNo @Ceist8 @ZombiePiano @CymaticWave @CrangusShish @insane_voice @TheDisproof @maya_phd @leonardjcohen @FrankWi74044551 @fknsavages27 @GillesnFio @HVACPerformance @heisenburgal2o3 @Achilles_1985 @Tokyo_Tom @stevethib Hansen et al 1988 is riddled with errors and contradictions. That mistake is one of the worst.

Consider these two descriptions of "Scenario A," both quoted from the paper. The first is on page 3, the second is on page 21:

sealevel.info/hansen1988.pdf…

sealevel.info/hansen1988.pdf…

@Willard1951 @EthonRaptor @IngersolRobert @KCTaz @Vieux_Rhone @ClimateSkeptic4 @ancistroneura @JsharkJill @swcrisis @RuleByLogic @Gladfly1 @OscarsWild1 @JoeTheAtheist @Schtickery @Jamz129 @PolAnimalAus @ClimatePoet @ClimateScience2 @WadeKendall4 @Tangomitteckel @NikolovScience @DisorderDipolar @SimonMaxfield8 @Kenneth72712993 @LochChesney @SmithRobertson8 @DawnTJ90 @MATTP1949 @AtomsksSanakan @ianrowley677 @BadgersNo @Ceist8 @ZombiePiano @CymaticWave @CrangusShish @insane_voice @TheDisproof @maya_phd @leonardjcohen @FrankWi74044551 @fknsavages27 @GillesnFio @HVACPerformance @heisenburgal2o3 @Achilles_1985 @Tokyo_Tom @stevethib p.3: "Scenario A assumes that growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely; the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially."
sealevel.info/hansen1988.pdf…

@Willard1951 @EthonRaptor @IngersolRobert @KCTaz @Vieux_Rhone @ClimateSkeptic4 @ancistroneura @JsharkJill @swcrisis @RuleByLogic @Gladfly1 @OscarsWild1 @JoeTheAtheist @Schtickery @Jamz129 @PolAnimalAus @ClimatePoet @ClimateScience2 @WadeKendall4 @Tangomitteckel @NikolovScience @DisorderDipolar @SimonMaxfield8 @Kenneth72712993 @LochChesney @SmithRobertson8 @DawnTJ90 @MATTP1949 @AtomsksSanakan @ianrowley677 @BadgersNo @Ceist8 @ZombiePiano @CymaticWave @CrangusShish @insane_voice @TheDisproof @maya_phd @leonardjcohen @FrankWi74044551 @fknsavages27 @GillesnFio @HVACPerformance @heisenburgal2o3 @Achilles_1985 @Tokyo_Tom @stevethib p.21: "...in scenario A CO2 increases as observed by Keeling for the interval 1958-1981 [Keeling et al., 1982] and subsequently with 1.5% yr⁻¹ growth of the annual increment."
sealevel.info/hansen1988.pdf…

Do you see the inconsistency? Those two descriptions are incompatible!

@Willard1951 @EthonRaptor @IngersolRobert @KCTaz @Vieux_Rhone @ClimateSkeptic4 @ancistroneura @JsharkJill @swcrisis @RuleByLogic @Gladfly1 @OscarsWild1 @JoeTheAtheist @Schtickery @Jamz129 @PolAnimalAus @ClimatePoet @ClimateScience2 @WadeKendall4 @Tangomitteckel @NikolovScience @DisorderDipolar @SimonMaxfield8 @Kenneth72712993 @LochChesney @SmithRobertson8 @DawnTJ90 @MATTP1949 @AtomsksSanakan @ianrowley677 @BadgersNo @Ceist8 @ZombiePiano @CymaticWave @CrangusShish @insane_voice @TheDisproof @maya_phd @leonardjcohen @FrankWi74044551 @fknsavages27 @GillesnFio @HVACPerformance @heisenburgal2o3 @Achilles_1985 @Tokyo_Tom @stevethib They equated "emissions" (p.3) with "annual increment" (the increase in amount of CO2 in the atmosphere each year).

Incredibly, it appears they didn't even realize natural processes would remove CO2 from the atmosphere, let alone that they would do so at an accelerating rate.

@Willard1951 @EthonRaptor @IngersolRobert @KCTaz @Vieux_Rhone @ClimateSkeptic4 @ancistroneura @JsharkJill @swcrisis @RuleByLogic @Gladfly1 @OscarsWild1 @JoeTheAtheist @Schtickery @Jamz129 @PolAnimalAus @ClimatePoet @ClimateScience2 @WadeKendall4 @Tangomitteckel @NikolovScience @DisorderDipolar @SimonMaxfield8 @Kenneth72712993 @LochChesney @SmithRobertson8 @DawnTJ90 @MATTP1949 @AtomsksSanakan @ianrowley677 @BadgersNo @Ceist8 @ZombiePiano @CymaticWave @CrangusShish @insane_voice @TheDisproof @maya_phd @leonardjcohen @FrankWi74044551 @fknsavages27 @GillesnFio @HVACPerformance @heisenburgal2o3 @Achilles_1985 @Tokyo_Tom @stevethib Alternately, it is possible that they realized natural processes remove CO2, but assumed those processes remove a fixed percentage of human emissions.

That's also complete nonsense (and a remarkably common error).

Those are the only ways to reconcile those two descriptions.

@Willard1951 @EthonRaptor @IngersolRobert @KCTaz @Vieux_Rhone @ClimateSkeptic4 @ancistroneura @JsharkJill @swcrisis @RuleByLogic @Gladfly1 @OscarsWild1 @JoeTheAtheist @Schtickery @Jamz129 @PolAnimalAus @ClimatePoet @ClimateScience2 @WadeKendall4 @Tangomitteckel @NikolovScience @DisorderDipolar @SimonMaxfield8 @Kenneth72712993 @LochChesney @SmithRobertson8 @DawnTJ90 @MATTP1949 @AtomsksSanakan @ianrowley677 @BadgersNo @Ceist8 @ZombiePiano @CymaticWave @CrangusShish @insane_voice @TheDisproof @maya_phd @leonardjcohen @FrankWi74044551 @fknsavages27 @GillesnFio @HVACPerformance @heisenburgal2o3 @Achilles_1985 @Tokyo_Tom @stevethib Either way, Hansen 𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭 were hopelessly confused.

@Willard1951 @EthonRaptor @IngersolRobert @KCTaz @Vieux_Rhone @ClimateSkeptic4 @ancistroneura @JsharkJill @swcrisis @RuleByLogic @Gladfly1 @OscarsWild1 @JoeTheAtheist @Schtickery @Jamz129 @PolAnimalAus @ClimatePoet @ClimateScience2 @WadeKendall4 @Tangomitteckel @NikolovScience @DisorderDipolar @SimonMaxfield8 @Kenneth72712993 @LochChesney @SmithRobertson8 @DawnTJ90 @MATTP1949 @AtomsksSanakan @ianrowley677 @BadgersNo @Ceist8 @ZombiePiano @CymaticWave @CrangusShish @insane_voice @TheDisproof @maya_phd @leonardjcohen @FrankWi74044551 @fknsavages27 @GillesnFio @HVACPerformance @heisenburgal2o3 @Achilles_1985 @Tokyo_Tom @stevethib In reality, all the important natural processes which remove CO2 from the atmosphere (biological uptake / "greening," dissolution into the water, and rock weathering) do so at rates which increase approximately linearly with increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.

@Willard1951 @EthonRaptor @IngersolRobert @KCTaz @Vieux_Rhone @ClimateSkeptic4 @ancistroneura @JsharkJill @swcrisis @RuleByLogic @Gladfly1 @OscarsWild1 @JoeTheAtheist @Schtickery @Jamz129 @PolAnimalAus @ClimatePoet @ClimateScience2 @WadeKendall4 @Tangomitteckel @NikolovScience @DisorderDipolar @SimonMaxfield8 @Kenneth72712993 @LochChesney @SmithRobertson8 @DawnTJ90 @MATTP1949 @AtomsksSanakan @ianrowley677 @BadgersNo @Ceist8 @ZombiePiano @CymaticWave @CrangusShish @insane_voice @TheDisproof @maya_phd @leonardjcohen @FrankWi74044551 @fknsavages27 @GillesnFio @HVACPerformance @heisenburgal2o3 @Achilles_1985 @Tokyo_Tom @stevethib That's the most important of the several reasons that CO2 emissions could increase even faster than the 1.5%/year assumed in their Scenario A, yet concentrations and temperatures nevertheless rose much more slowly than their 0.5°C/decade prediction.
sealevel.info/hansen88_predi…

@Willard1951 @EthonRaptor @IngersolRobert @KCTaz @Vieux_Rhone @ClimateSkeptic4 @ancistroneura @JsharkJill @swcrisis @RuleByLogic @Gladfly1 @OscarsWild1 @JoeTheAtheist @Schtickery @Jamz129 @PolAnimalAus @ClimatePoet @ClimateScience2 @WadeKendall4 @Tangomitteckel @NikolovScience @DisorderDipolar @SimonMaxfield8 @Kenneth72712993 @LochChesney @SmithRobertson8 @DawnTJ90 @MATTP1949 @AtomsksSanakan @ianrowley677 @BadgersNo @Ceist8 @ZombiePiano @CymaticWave @CrangusShish @insane_voice @TheDisproof @maya_phd @leonardjcohen @FrankWi74044551 @fknsavages27 @GillesnFio @HVACPerformance @heisenburgal2o3 @Achilles_1985 @Tokyo_Tom @stevethib Their p.3 description of scenario A had emissions increasing 1.5% per year, totaling 47% in 26 years. But CO2 emissions increased an average of 1.97% per year, totaling 66% in 26 years:
cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/ftp/ndp030/glo…
Yet temperatures increased at only 1/3 to 1/4 of their predicted rate

@Willard1951 @EthonRaptor @IngersolRobert @KCTaz @Vieux_Rhone @ClimateSkeptic4 @ancistroneura @JsharkJill @swcrisis @RuleByLogic @Gladfly1 @OscarsWild1 @JoeTheAtheist @Schtickery @Jamz129 @PolAnimalAus @ClimatePoet @ClimateScience2 @WadeKendall4 @Tangomitteckel @NikolovScience @DisorderDipolar @SimonMaxfield8 @Kenneth72712993 @LochChesney @SmithRobertson8 @DawnTJ90 @MATTP1949 @AtomsksSanakan @ianrowley677 @BadgersNo @Ceist8 @ZombiePiano @CymaticWave @CrangusShish @insane_voice @TheDisproof @maya_phd @leonardjcohen @FrankWi74044551 @fknsavages27 @GillesnFio @HVACPerformance @heisenburgal2o3 @Achilles_1985 @Tokyo_Tom @stevethib Another astonishing error in their paper was that on p.3 they wrote that an annual 1.5% (i.e., exponential) increase in GHGs causes an 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙡 “net greenhouse forcing.”

@Willard1951 @EthonRaptor @IngersolRobert @KCTaz @Vieux_Rhone @ClimateSkeptic4 @ancistroneura @JsharkJill @swcrisis @RuleByLogic @Gladfly1 @OscarsWild1 @JoeTheAtheist @Schtickery @Jamz129 @PolAnimalAus @ClimatePoet @ClimateScience2 @WadeKendall4 @Tangomitteckel @NikolovScience @DisorderDipolar @SimonMaxfield8 @Kenneth72712993 @LochChesney @SmithRobertson8 @DawnTJ90 @MATTP1949 @AtomsksSanakan @ianrowley677 @BadgersNo @Ceist8 @ZombiePiano @CymaticWave @CrangusShish @insane_voice @TheDisproof @maya_phd @leonardjcohen @FrankWi74044551 @fknsavages27 @GillesnFio @HVACPerformance @heisenburgal2o3 @Achilles_1985 @Tokyo_Tom @stevethib Long before 1988 it was common knowledge that increases in atmospheric CO2 level cause a 𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙢𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 forcing. So an exponential increase in CO2 level causes a forcing which asymptotically approaches 𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙖𝙧, not exponential.

@Willard1951 @EthonRaptor @IngersolRobert @KCTaz @Vieux_Rhone @ClimateSkeptic4 @ancistroneura @JsharkJill @swcrisis @RuleByLogic @Gladfly1 @OscarsWild1 @JoeTheAtheist @Schtickery @Jamz129 @PolAnimalAus @ClimatePoet @ClimateScience2 @WadeKendall4 @Tangomitteckel @NikolovScience @DisorderDipolar @SimonMaxfield8 @Kenneth72712993 @LochChesney @SmithRobertson8 @DawnTJ90 @MATTP1949 @AtomsksSanakan @ianrowley677 @BadgersNo @Ceist8 @ZombiePiano @CymaticWave @CrangusShish @insane_voice @TheDisproof @maya_phd @leonardjcohen @FrankWi74044551 @fknsavages27 @GillesnFio @HVACPerformance @heisenburgal2o3 @Achilles_1985 @Tokyo_Tom @stevethib So it's incredible that apparently none of those eight authors, nor their JGR editors and peer-reviewers, recognized that the absurd claim of an an exponential “net greenhouse forcing” was wrong.

In a more rigorous field such an blunder couldn't have withstood peer review.

@Willard1951 @EthonRaptor @IngersolRobert @KCTaz @Vieux_Rhone @ClimateSkeptic4 @ancistroneura @JsharkJill @swcrisis @RuleByLogic @Gladfly1 @OscarsWild1 @JoeTheAtheist @Schtickery @Jamz129 @PolAnimalAus @ClimatePoet @ClimateScience2 @WadeKendall4 @Tangomitteckel @NikolovScience @DisorderDipolar @SimonMaxfield8 @Kenneth72712993 @LochChesney @SmithRobertson8 @DawnTJ90 @MATTP1949 @AtomsksSanakan @ianrowley677 @BadgersNo @Ceist8 @ZombiePiano @CymaticWave @CrangusShish @insane_voice @TheDisproof @maya_phd @leonardjcohen @FrankWi74044551 @fknsavages27 @GillesnFio @HVACPerformance @heisenburgal2o3 @Achilles_1985 @Tokyo_Tom @stevethib 𝑨𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒉𝒊𝒕𝒔 𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒌𝒆𝒆𝒑 𝒐𝒏 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒈…

@Willard1951 @EthonRaptor @IngersolRobert @KCTaz @Vieux_Rhone @ClimateSkeptic4 @ancistroneura @JsharkJill @swcrisis @RuleByLogic @Gladfly1 @OscarsWild1 @JoeTheAtheist @Schtickery @Jamz129 @PolAnimalAus @ClimatePoet @ClimateScience2 @WadeKendall4 @Tangomitteckel @NikolovScience @DisorderDipolar @SimonMaxfield8 @Kenneth72712993 @LochChesney @SmithRobertson8 @DawnTJ90 @MATTP1949 @AtomsksSanakan @ianrowley677 @BadgersNo @Ceist8 @ZombiePiano @CymaticWave @CrangusShish @insane_voice @TheDisproof @maya_phd @leonardjcohen @FrankWi74044551 @fknsavages27 @GillesnFio @HVACPerformance @heisenburgal2o3 @Achilles_1985 @Tokyo_Tom @stevethib Hansen also included an exponential increase in CFCs in his "business as usual” Scenario A. That is 𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙛𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙚, because the Montreal Protocol had already been agreed upon in 1987, and the Vienna Convention way back in 1985.

google.com/search?q=%28%2…

@Willard1951 @EthonRaptor @IngersolRobert @KCTaz @Vieux_Rhone @ClimateSkeptic4 @ancistroneura @JsharkJill @swcrisis @RuleByLogic @Gladfly1 @OscarsWild1 @JoeTheAtheist @Schtickery @Jamz129 @PolAnimalAus @ClimatePoet @ClimateScience2 @WadeKendall4 @Tangomitteckel @NikolovScience @DisorderDipolar @SimonMaxfield8 @Kenneth72712993 @LochChesney @SmithRobertson8 @DawnTJ90 @MATTP1949 @AtomsksSanakan @ianrowley677 @BadgersNo @Ceist8 @ZombiePiano @CymaticWave @CrangusShish @insane_voice @TheDisproof @maya_phd @leonardjcohen @FrankWi74044551 @fknsavages27 @GillesnFio @HVACPerformance @heisenburgal2o3 @Achilles_1985 @Tokyo_Tom @stevethib It is impossible to imagine that Hansen, his seven co-authors, the peer-reviewers, and the JGR editors, were all ignorant of those already-existing treaties.

So there can be 𝙣𝙤 𝙚𝙭𝙘𝙪𝙨𝙚 for nevertheless projecting exponential increases in CFCs, in any of their scenarios.

@Willard1951 @EthonRaptor @IngersolRobert @KCTaz @Vieux_Rhone @ClimateSkeptic4 @ancistroneura @JsharkJill @swcrisis @RuleByLogic @Gladfly1 @OscarsWild1 @JoeTheAtheist @Schtickery @Jamz129 @PolAnimalAus @ClimatePoet @ClimateScience2 @WadeKendall4 @Tangomitteckel @NikolovScience @DisorderDipolar @SimonMaxfield8 @Kenneth72712993 @LochChesney @SmithRobertson8 @DawnTJ90 @MATTP1949 @AtomsksSanakan @ianrowley677 @BadgersNo @Ceist8 @ZombiePiano @CymaticWave @CrangusShish @insane_voice @TheDisproof @maya_phd @leonardjcohen @FrankWi74044551 @fknsavages27 @GillesnFio @HVACPerformance @heisenburgal2o3 @Achilles_1985 @Tokyo_Tom @stevethib They obviously 𝙠𝙣𝙚𝙬 CFC emissions would be decreasing, not increasing. Yet they dishonestly promoted a “scenario” as “business as usual,” which they 𝙠𝙣𝙚𝙬 was actually impossible… and the JGR editors and their peer-reviewers let them get away with it.