If you are willing to outline, specifically, in Hansen's 1988 paper, which predictions you feel that Hansen was eggregiously in error about. Then we can define exactly what was stated and use the historic record to look at the actual climate data since 1988 and see for ourselves what this tells us.
In the links below are the predictions of the Hansen and the actual performance of the climate.
The three scenarios start at about the same point.
There is a good starting point, though to be honest I would prefer not to explore a blog post when we have the actual paper itself to go by. I would rather discuss Hansen's own words than some blogger's impressions of the paper and whether or not he properly evaluated the paper and the data which supports or doesn't support that paper. This is especially the case if you are going to dismiss the blogger's assessment regardless of his qualifications to make those assessments. By exploring the actual paper and what it actually says and then comparing those words to the actual data records for the initial periods since those words were published we should be able to see precisely what is going on and where the "predictions" you are concerned about are incorrect or correct.
Do you understand the difference in meaning and application between a "senario" and a "prediction?"
Mauna Loa instrumental atmospheric CO2 measurement readings began in 1958.
The presentation was made in 1988. At that point the actual temperature was already lagging the projections by a tad with 1988 being a valley between peaks of 1987 and 1989.
Please explain how the initial start point of a projection can "lag" behind that projection.
There were three Scenarios and the one that most closely matches the CO2 scenario is B.
Well, there was also the 100-year control run with CO2 levels held at the fixed 1958 level, and while that isn't a "prediction," it gets at the heart of the issue concerning the problems that come from trying to associate and call and think about senarios as if they were "predictions."
We can discuss the individual senarios in more detail if you'd like, and it would greatly help in the understanding of a term that post dates the 88 Hansen paper, that being the phrase now commonly known by the acronym SRES (Special Report on Emission Scenarios). If we really want to properly understand Hansen's senarios, we need to use his paper and see what it says rather than trying to work with other people's interpretations and considerations.
If you want to go back over what the paper actually says and explore this subject properly, I am more than willing to join you in that exploration, if however, you are only interested in proving or disproving what one blogger has said about another blogger in regards to the first blogger's considerations of the paper,...I'll allow you to continue on that path on your own
