This is Hansen et al. 1988 where I explain what he predicted and how those scenarios were defined. Hansen's predictions for Antarctic temperatures were wrong, and the excuse is that this was because of senario B, which didn't happen and if it had it would have effected both poles. They were right if radiative forcing actually drove temperatures today, but obviously that simply isn't true.

"CO2 is a greenhouse gas - so ..." Sure, temperatures CO2 are related. But his relationship is backwards. The cart does not pull the horse. Anyone who has been married understands relationships are never simple. In the ice-core record, CO2 consistently lags Antarctic temperature during glacial-interglacial transitions, typically by centuries. Orbital (Milankovitch) changes initiate the warming; the oceans then outgas CO2 as a positive feedback. Newer analyses have narrowed the lag in some intervals, but they have not reversed the order. CO2 does not start the warming, it is the cart being pulled by the horse (Sun). If radiative forcing from CO2 is logarithmic. Each successive doubling produces less additional forcing (~3.7–4 W/m²), and would not be a linear increase. The main absorption bands are already heavily saturated near the surface. He continues to claim that we observe warming due to the presence of a signal, but that's dumb as we only see it in the presence of water vapor. Water vapor, not CO2, accounts for the large majority of the greenhouse effect. The uncertain quantity is climate sensitivity. And this is the real discussion. Is there really even any sensitivity? Observational energy-budget estimates for the modern period fall in the lower half of the model range (roughly 1.5–2.5 °C for a doubling in several studies), while many climate models run higher. This is an indication that sensitivity is low. This becomes a problem and it's the one every activist I see fails to acknowledge. The biggest reason is the recent rise in Earth’s energy imbalance (CERES era) has been driven primarily (or possibly entirely) by increased absorbed solar radiation (reduced albedo from clouds, aerosols, and sea ice), only partially offset by higher outgoing longwave radiation. OLR has not fallen. Yet, OLR not falling does not mean there has been no change in net heat flux. CERES data show that Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI = absorbed solar radiation minus OLR) has roughly doubled since the early 2000s, from about 0.5 W/m² to around 1.0–1.25 W/m² in recent multi-year averages, but as indicated above, it was NOT due to increased CO2. That's a pretty significant change which can't be attributed to CO2. A pure greenhouse-gas trapping signal would reduce OLR and thereby increase the imbalance. That is not what the satellite record shows over this interval. The longwave term has moved in the opposite direction; the shortwave term has driven the increase in net heat gain.

The chart is a fitted representation, and it fails as a test of that logarithm. The reasons are under the figure. Although, the graph I produced is far better, it merely suggests we don't yet fully understanding the relationship and doesn't falsify nor support any conclusion.

Indeed, and I agree. We're comparing instrumentals and highly smoothed proxies, but if we look at other proxies, like stomata, it's very clear that CO₂ follows no such log pattern. And has even more variability in shorter periods than today.

There is NO ELECTION INTEGRITY in California! California sent 20,000 ballots to non-citizens. Are they going to get away with this? youtu.be/fVhRGwBOjCU?si=FFp6…

"Elections in America are SECURE. Stop spreading nonsense!" No. 10's of thousands have illegally voted in American elections. here-is-the-evidence-electio…

Yes. I rule out nonsense. I explain why it's nonsense in the first image then using REAL observational and instrumental data what the graph should look like in Image two.

Now if the trend data holds, we should see a leveling of the temperature over the next 5-10 years when I redraw the graph provided.

Since you insist on using your bogus graph so often, I can at least give you an accurately drawn graph using real world data. Let me show you exactly why Michael Mann tried to hide this trend, and why your graph is bogus. First, the blue line is not emissions, and it is not the CO2 concentration. Emissions are tons per year. Concentration is the tons the air has kept. The line is a logarithm of that concentration, times a number chosen so the recent trend matches, plus a constant chosen so the pens overlap. Next, let's add the temperature trends from 1910-1940 and the resumed trend between 1970 to present. OMG! Do you see the bump, exactly where I predicted it would be near the 1940s? Perhaps this is why so many scientists (like myself) who have spent years doing real scientific work have a somewhat logically skeptical view of the radiative forcing hypothesis. Furthermore; human emissions would not draw that blue line! The blue line is not emissions, and it is not the CO2 concentration. Emissions are tons per year. Concentration is the tons the air has kept. And that's an important distinction, isn't it. The line is a logarithm of that concentration, times a number chosen so the recent trend matches, plus a constant chosen so the pens overlap. If industrial emissions were what your chart claims to display, the curve would have to follow the emission history: slow before 1950, a postwar step, the post-2000 acceleration, the 2020 dip. But your graph does not. Your logarithm erases those steps, and the vertical slide erases the gap. A smooth overlay is what you get after those two operations. It is not evidence that temperature is the log of fossil fuel usage. The radiative forcing of a given CO2 concentration is approximately logarithmic. That is a statement about photons, not a license to crop the temperature record at 1959 and call the regression a measurement. So, stop posting your bogus graph, expecting it to have an effect on someone who has spent a lifetime doing the real scientific work! The graph is still not a picture of temperature, but a logarithmic forcing is an idealized BS answer and should be rejected based on observational evidence and cycle time physics.

No, reconstructions like yours smooth away all the variability until they arrive at the same kind of BS we witnessed with Mann's fraudulent hockey stick. Real scientists don't need to commit fraud or exaggerate to convince people.