Originally Posted by cdcox
Ok, I carefully checked the CO2 data and I agree that actual emissions are above scenario A. But looking at the other gases, clearly they have not followed scenario A:
If you look at the total climate forcing of these gases and lay a straight line on the slope of the curve in 1985 and project it forward, clearly forcing has been growing at a sublinear rate since the paper was published, which would put us some where between scenario B and C.
You can't just look at CO2 alone.
I don't have time right now but I'll refute this in more detail later... regardless... that was NOT what Hanson's model predicted. So you could argue that his model wasn't wrong (you'd be wrong but you could argue it), you CAN NOT, however, argue that it was right or that it validates anything.
BTW I totally agree that you can't just look at CO2.. just like you can't marginalize solar data or a multitude of other factors.
And let me reiterate, Hanson (and others) aren't close to being accurate until you start to either "adjust" the model or you simply lie about the observable data. (By YOU I mean people like the guy in the one article not YOU personally. You're a stand up guy.